Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Looked-after Children

David Jones: What representations he has received on the Government's Green Paper on looked-after children.

Alan Johnson: The "Care Matters" Green Paper set out for consultation a proposed package of reforms to transform the lives of children in care. Following a comprehensive consultation process, my Department published a summary of the responses that we received on 17 April. Those documents are available on the Government's "Every Child Matters" website. The Government will set out their firm proposals for transforming services for children in care in a White Paper this summer.

David Jones: The Green Paper proposes the appointment of a body of specialist foster carers for children with complex needs. Given that there is a national shortage of approximately 10,000 foster carers, what resources does the Secretary of State propose to make available for the recruitment, training and retention of those specialist carers?

Alan Johnson: As was pointed out by Martin Narey, chair of Barnardo's, the issue of children in care is—curiously for a political issue—not about resources. Plenty of resources are going in—the problem is that children slip into care too quickly, are moved around too often and are pushed out too early at the age of 16. If we include the proposals that were in our consultation document in the White Paper and subsequently in legislation, we shall need to make more resources available. We recognise that if we are to have a more professional, better-trained body of foster carers, additional resources will be needed.

Diana Johnson: I am a former chair of a local authority scrutiny panel that produced a report on the services available to young people in care. We found that co-opting young people in the care system was useful. What opportunities are there for young people who are currently in care to contribute to the direction and shaping of policy?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend has raised an important point about how we can involve children who are in care, as well as children who have been in care. Twenty-seven per cent. of the prison population were in care as children. As part of our consultation exercise, we have spoken to those people. I think it essential for the final proposals to be drawn up on the basis of the widest possible consultation not just with the public, but with children in care.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) mentioned the chronic shortage of foster carers. Will the Secretary of State study kinship care programmes, such as the one run by Hampshire county council, to try to find ways of increasing the number of people who will offer loving homes to children in this position?

Alan Johnson: That is precisely the sort of scheme that we want to examine. The Hampshire scheme provides a very good service, and there are other schemes around the country whose services are excellent. We should learn from them and ensure that such services are spread more widely. We are taking a comprehensive, root-and-branch look at how we can transform the life chances of children in care, and we are obliged to take account of the very best practice.

Paul Rowen: The Secretary of State may be aware that the level of care provided by some companies, such as Green Corns in my constituency, have given cause for concern. What steps will he take to ensure that young people in care receive the level of care to which they are entitled?

Alan Johnson: I do not think we would have been able to embark on this stage of such a radical transformation for children in care without "Every Child Matters". That was the essential building block, and it is working very well in every part of the country. Local authorities, social services departments and others have done a tremendous job. We are not 100 per cent. there yet, but "Every Child Matters" is the foundation stone when it comes to tackling the problems that the hon. Gentleman has described.

Graduate Debt

Mark Hunter: What the most recent figure is for the average level of graduate debt on leaving university.

Bill Rammell: For students graduating in 2005, the average post-graduate repayment is estimated to be just under £8,000. Under the new system of student support introduced this year there are no up-front fees, and loans are repaid only when the graduate is in employment and earning at least £15,000 a year. We have restored non-repayable grants and introduced new bursaries paid by universities. Under that fairer and more progressive system of student financial support, applications for next year are up by 6 per cent.

Mark Hunter: Last summer, the Secretary of State told the Education and Skills Committee that the 2009 review of the tuition fees policy
	"could lead to us abandoning this policy altogether."
	Can the Minister confirm that the impact of graduate debt will be a major factor in the review? If it is found to be damaging, might the Department reject the policy altogether?

Bill Rammell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that it is essential that we undertake the review. Our position on the issue has been consistent from the beginning and we will not pre-empt that review. We have to see the first full three years of operation. However, we need some consistency on the issue from all politicians from all political parties. The Liberal Democrats in government in Scotland have been supporting a system of postgraduate repayment that is no different in principle whatever from the system that we have in England.

Christopher Fraser: Given the high level of student debt and the stiff competition for graduate jobs, what are the Government doing to promote and encourage modern apprenticeships as an alternative career path for young people?

Bill Rammell: The Government have tripled apprenticeships in the past 10 years, in stark contrast to the position in the 1980s and early 1990s, when apprenticeships almost disappeared. We are talking up apprenticeships and increasing the numbers, not talking them down, as Opposition Front Benchers consistently do.

John Hayes: The university admissions body, speaking of debt, reports a large increase in suspected student loan fraud. There were 1,500 cases in 2006 and a BBC investigation uncovered fraud involving 200 stolen birth certificates, resulting in the loss of an estimated £1.2 million. The Minister knows that he has failed to respond to my call for a full investigation. I know that he is busy and that he has an excuse—he is calculating the deadweight cost of the train-to-gain scheme; working out how many apprenticeships do not have any workplace element, and making up excuses in case diplomas go horribly wrong. However, it should not be up to the media to investigate such systematic criminal activity. Will he bring to the House details of his internal inquiry, for there must have been one? How much does he expect fraud to be reduced as a result of tighter new rules? I cannot keep making excuses for him.

Bill Rammell: We have undertaken an internal inquiry. The estimate is that the level of fraud is 0.6 per cent. of the total. That level is unacceptable, but it is significantly better than in other areas of the benefit system. We have also tightened up the system. If the hon. Gentleman wants to give the impression that he is opposed to the current system of student financing and the system of postgraduate repayment, he may want to talk to his colleague, the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who said recently:
	"We have junked the old Tory opposition to the variable fee. We have jettisoned our sour mealy mouthed and intellectually incoherent programme for government."
	I do not think that that message has quite been translated across the Opposition Front Bench yet.

Child Asylum Seekers

Anthony Steen: If he will take steps to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are eligible for free state education until they reach 18 years of age.

Parmjit Dhanda: Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are eligible for free state education.

Anthony Steen: Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and there are 3,000 of them most years, will not complete their full-time education if the Home Office reduces their discretionary leave from 18 to 17&frac12; before they are deported. What will happen with their exams if they are pushed out six months early?

Parmjit Dhanda: As I am sure you will understand, Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer questions on behalf of the Home Office on immigration policy, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all that we can to support those children within the education system. That means, as I said earlier, ensuring that they have free entitlement throughout their time in schooling, up to the age of 18, including Learning and Skills Council-funded courses at levels 2 and 3, as would be the case for any other child in this country.

Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State referred to the "Every Child Matters" programme in connection with looked-after children. May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on his excellent campaign? This is a very large category of looked-after children, yet it seems to be dealt with by the Home Office. What assurances can the Minister give the House that that category of looked-after children are having the best possible outcomes, along with every other looked-after child and, indeed, every other child in this country?

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Lady makes a fair point about the attainment of that group of looked-after children. While 56 per cent. of children typically manage to attain five good GCSEs, as she will be aware, that figure is about 11 per cent. for looked-after children and just 4 per cent. for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, so there is more that we can do, and we are determined to do that. There is the ethnic minority achievement grant, for example, which is worth £178 million and will be targeted particularly at bilingual children. There are things that can be done at local level, too. Devon county council, in which the constituency of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is located, is producing local literature targeting support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The Department for Education and Skills has provided guidance. We are also working closely with the Home Office to look at the interface between the unaccompanied asylum seekers grant and the care leavers grant. Work is ongoing between us and the Home Office.

"Youth Matters"

Kitty Ussher: How the Government plan to improve the participation of young people in decisions about local facilities following the Green Paper "Youth Matters".

Beverley Hughes: Legislation introduced in section 6 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 places new responsibilities on local authorities to secure young people's access to positive activities. The legislation also requires that, in securing access to positive activities, local authorities involve young people in local decisions about what those activities should be. In addition, extra resources of £115 million have been made available through the youth opportunity and youth capital funds, and it is a condition that those funds are spent directly by young people on schemes run for young people.

Kitty Ussher: I welcome my right hon. Friend's response. Does she share my admiration for the fact that Lancashire county council meets on a quarterly basis with the youth council to discuss all issues of policy relating to young people in the county? Is that something that she would like to see replicated in other parts of the country—and, indeed, nationally?

Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her general support for schemes for young people and their participation in them. A number of local authorities are establishing youth councils, as well as young mayors and youth cabinets, which is certainly one important way to involve young people in learning about the democratic process and decision making—and the limits on it—while also acquiring valuable and important experience around team work, co-operation, reliability and representation. Although this is not the only way of doing that, it is an important way, and I would certainly like local authorities to consider doing it more.

George Young: Is not the best way of improving the participation of young people in decisions about local facilities to encourage them to vote in and stand for local elections? Will she therefore commend Phil North in my constituency who, at the age of 21, stood for Test Valley borough council, defeated the leader of the Liberal Democrat group and is now ensuring that there is a strong voice for young people in the council chamber?

Beverley Hughes: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be great to see more young people of that age as proper representatives in our local democracies. I am sure that, whatever party they represent, they will provide a strong voice for young people.

Ann Coffey: The hardest to reach young people are not involved in youth or other formal organisations, but they are the very young people who we need to involve. We need to encourage them off the streets and into more positive activities. I am very concerned that they will not reap the full benefit of the youth opportunity funds, so will my right hon. Friend assure me that when she is assessing projects in Greater Manchester, she will take any action necessary to ensure that the funds are used in the way that they were intended to be used?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend, who I know takes a great interest in these issues in her local area. I made it a condition on both the youth opportunity and capital funds that local authorities should work very hard to seek out the most disadvantaged young people, who can gain so much from the sort of positive activities that those funds will stimulate as well as from the process of decision making. We are just about to collate the data on the first year of operation of both those funds and I have asked for evidence of the extent to which disadvantaged children and young people have been involved. I will look at that very closely and will be happy to share the data with my hon. Friend.

Julia Goldsworthy: What discussions have the Minister and the Department had with the Department for Communities and Local Government about the Sustainable Communities Bill, supported by the Government, which will ensure that young people have a much greater say not only on facilities provided for them, but on all the services provided at the local level?

Beverley Hughes: The whole question of sustainability and the role of local authorities in promoting it opens up, for me, yet another set of opportunities for children and young people that we are only just beginning to realise and appreciate. It is the question of the importance of place, green spaces and opportunities created around those developments for young people. We need to explore them much more fully and my officials are talking to officials in the DCLG precisely to that end. I welcome the point that the hon. Lady has made. It is important and we should look further into it.

Nicholas Winterton: This is an interesting question. Will the Minister tell the House what sort of facilities young people would like to see made available to them in the local authority areas in which they live? Her response should be interesting; I hope that it will be. Will she also tell us whether the provision of such facilities will attract any central Government financial resource?

Beverley Hughes: What I do not want to do is speak for young people, because adults tend to do that too often. I want local authorities and their local partners to have not just a one-off dialogue with young people about these funds, but an ongoing dialogue to enable them really to explore the local issues and find out what young people want in their area. The projects that have already sought and secured funds from the two pots of money that we have given out have been many and varied. They have ranged from young people setting up their own voluntarily run youth centre to getting experience in hairdressing and beauty—those are examples from the Burnley projects that we have funded. There has also been a great deal of interest in media opportunities, art and animation. I urge any Member to go to their local area, ask about these projects and visit some of them. They will see the huge variety of things going on and the difference that they are making to many young people.

City Academies

Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of local education authorities in East Anglia to discuss the city academy programme.

Alan Johnson: I have no immediate plans to meet representatives of local education authorities in East Anglia to discuss academies. However, I am aware of the two academy projects under development in Norfolk. The schools commissioner has recently visited Norfolk and Suffolk to discuss secondary education provision in those areas.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Secretary of State aware that Park high school in my constituency is now planning to relocate to a new site as a city academy? That move has the overwhelming support of the community, the governors and the teachers. The mood is very optimistic, particularly as the Royal Society of Arts has now come forward as a potential sponsor. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the proposal his full support? Will he also make it clear that Her Majesty's Government are as committed as ever to the city academy programme in spite of some of the cautious comments that have been made by some of his colleagues over the past few weeks?

Alan Johnson: We are as committed as ever to the city academy programme. I would like to help the Conservatives, while they are transforming their education policy to match ours, by explaining that the ambition to build more academies has to be matched by funding. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will give great consideration to the school in his area. Establishing 400 academies—one in every area of deprivation in the country—will also require funding. The problem with the Conservatives is that they will not be able to match that funding with their third fiscal rule and their commitment to tax cuts. The best way for the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he gets his academy is to keep Labour in government. Conservative Members have been trying hard to do that over the past couple of weeks, and we are very grateful to them.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that 90 per cent. of the academies and specialist schools in East Anglia are members of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust? The Education and Skills Committee took evidence yesterday from Sir Cyril Taylor, and what he and the trust are asking for is a full, healthy discussion about what we are doing in secondary education—not just in academies but in grammar schools. We are also grateful to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) for starting a very good discussion about the future of existing and intended grammar schools.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend has made a huge contribution to this area. The evidence submitted by Sir Cyril Taylor to yesterday's hearing was interesting, because he identified a need for academies to co-operate and co-ordinate their activities with other schools in their area. That was the one element of criticism in the National Audit Office report last year. Of course, academies have to take these things a step at a time. Sir Cyril also mentioned the importance of the 164 existing grammar schools forging links with failing schools nearby and making a contribution to lifting standards of education in the entire community. That is an important contribution to the debate.

Sammy Wilson: The provision of books to the academies is important in the delivery of education, but does the Minister accept that the role played by grammar schools in East Anglia and across the UK is important in providing choice and good education opportunities? The party to my right has now embraced the Government's policy on city academies—doing a not-so-elegant somersault on grammar schools and using rhetoric with which the Sinn Fein Minister in Northern Ireland would be quite pleased—but will the Minister assure us that he will not use that change of heart as a smokescreen for launching further attacks on grammar schools?

Alan Johnson: The Conservatives are indeed a party to the hon. Gentleman's right; that was an accurate description. During the 10 years that we have been in government, we have given the assurance that we have no plans to get rid of any of the 164 grammar schools. We will not allow any new academic selection, and our admissions code made that absolutely clear. We have put in arrangements for parental ballots if local communities feel that they ought to move to a non-selective system. That is the way to ensure that local communities are happy with their education system and that we make progress in the 21st century. I do not believe that that involves the extension of grammar schools.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State not only do everything that he can to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has his city academy, but will he invite the Leader of the Opposition to open it?

Alan Johnson: It depends on how the Leader of the Opposition takes this forward now. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has made his mark and passages from his interesting speech resonated from "The Future of Socialism" by Tony Crosland in the 1950s. However, with all the knives out behind him, I am worried that he will not manage to make progress. If he does, he will be the Leader—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] He might be the Leader of the Opposition. If he does, he will be the shadow Secretary of State for Education for a long time to come. I very much hope that that will involve him in helping us to open 400 new city academies.

David Willetts: Of course we strongly support existing grammar schools and it is an excellent idea that they should co-operate more with schools that should benefit from their academic expertise. The Secretary of State is right; we have been focusing on how, in East Anglia and across the country, we can use education to improve social mobility in the large parts of the country where grammar schools do not exist. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) is rightly concerned because last week, for the first time, the Secretary of State said that there would be "a limit" on the number of academies. The very same week, the BBC reported that the Prime Minister said:
	"In a few years time when all schools will be academies, we'll see a transformed education system."
	So why is it that when the Prime Minister is leaving office, the Secretary of State is taking his foot off the accelerator and going cool on academies, when we on this side strongly support academies and do not see why there should be any limit on their number?

Alan Johnson: We are hardly taking our foot off the accelerator. There are 47 academies now. We have a manifesto commitment to have 200 academies by 2010 and we have just announced that we are to go on to build 400 academies. [Hon. Members: "Higher, higher."] I will come to that in a second. Given that the specific intention of academies is to build them predominantly in areas where education has failed generations of children—in areas of deprivation—400 fits that bill. When we get to 400—it will take many years of a Labour Government with the right finance to get there—obviously we can look at where we can go further.
	The hon. Member for Havant raised this important issue of social exclusion in a thoughtful speech and mentioned it in his question. He said that
	"academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it."
	That is absolutely our view, but I have to tell him that it is not the view of his colleagues and it is not the view of the leader of his party. Here is what the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said specifically in response—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Rob Wilson. [ Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman wanted to ask a supplementary; I saw him standing.

Robert Wilson: I will ask a supplementary, which, as the question is about East Anglia, had better be about East Anglia. When the Secretary of State finally gets around to meeting the local authorities in East Anglia, will he explain to them in great detail why he has put the limit at 400? I simply do not believe that it is a question of funding. The Secretary of State has been so committed to the academy programme from the very start. Will he please explain to those local authorities and mine why we cannot have more academies?

Alan Johnson: Let me repeat: we have 47 academies. In 18 years of Tory rule the Conservatives managed to establish only 15 city technology colleges. That was a good idea, but the Tories could not match it with the funding—a pathetic performance. We now have 47 academies; we will have 200 by 2010, and we have announced that we will move to having 400. It is not our intention that every school should be an academy. Academies are an important part of local education provision, but there are many splendid schools that have turned things around. Stockwell park high school is not far from here; 70 per cent. of its children are on free school meals and more than 50 per cent. speak languages other than English. When we came into government, 11 per cent. of its children got five good GCSEs; it has now achieved a rise to 57 per cent. with a 41 per cent. pass rate in English and maths and 85 per cent. in science. Therefore, not every school needs to be an academy. Academies are needed in places where education has traditionally failed and where there is an input of children from deprived areas. They act as bastions around cities and have the effect of lifting education throughout the area. An announcement that we will go 200 beyond our manifesto commitment is hardly taking our foot off the accelerator.

Universities (Key Subjects)

Andrew Rosindell: What recent steps the Government have taken to ensure the maintenance of capacity in key subjects following the closure of departments in universities; and if he will make a statement.

Bill Rammell: We are allocating an extra £25 million a year through the Higher Education Funding Council for England to maintain capacity in key subjects, but the best long-term way of achieving that is to raise and stimulate demand and we are making genuine progress on that. The latest Universities and Colleges Admissions Service application figures show increases of more than 10 per cent. in many strategically important subjects, and last week I announced that we will launch a national campaign to promote careers in science and other key subjects to young people, parents and teachers.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is not the real problem that children are not being enthused to study these subjects? What is he doing to ensure that children throughout the country—especially those in the maintained sector—are being encouraged to study languages and sciences at school in sufficient numbers to make university departments viable?

Bill Rammell: With regard to modern foreign languages, the most important change that we can make is the commitment that we have made to roll out a modern foreign language in every primary school by the end of the decade; that can transform the situation. With regard to science subjects, we are making changes to the science curriculum to make it more stimulating and engaging. We are introducing a statutory entitlement to a course of study leading to two science GCSEs and we are making triple science more accessible and available from 2008. Backed up by the significant investment that this Government have introduced, we have a way forward on this issue.

Kelvin Hopkins: While I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the Government's current plans, is it not time to introduce a high degree of central planning in the provision of university courses so that we make sure that we have sufficient engineers and scientists in particular for our long-term economic needs and we do not leave things to the vagaries of short-term market forces?

Bill Rammell: The key is not the number of science departments but the number of science students, and the fact is that we have 130,000 more science students today than we had 10 years ago. I disagree with my hon. Friend in that I think it would be wrong for central Government to dictate what subjects are taught in which universities. That would run counter to the policy of allowing universities to play to their strengths, which has led to us having one of the best higher education systems in the world. However, we do not stand back. We have invested an extra £25 million to promote the strategic subjects, and we expect institutions to work with the funding council when considering a closure to ensure that the numbers are rolled out elsewhere regionally and there is not a drop in capacity. As I have said, we are doing an immense amount to stimulate demand from students, which is the key to this issue.

Sarah Teather: The closure of university science departments is likely to have an impact on the recruitment of science graduates for teaching. With that in mind, how are the Government progressing in meeting the Chancellor's pledge in last year's Budget to recruit an additional 3,000 new science graduates for teaching?

Bill Rammell: As I said earlier, applications for science subjects next year are up by more than 10 per cent. That demonstrates that we are fulfilling that demand. Driven by the extra support—including bursaries and golden hellos—delivered by the Government, we have seen a 30 per cent. increase in applicants for teacher training in science subjects over the past 10 years. We are genuinely making real progress on the issue and I wish that, just for once, the Liberal Democrats would recognise that fact.

David Taylor: But one in three physics departments at universities have closed or merged in the last five years. Is not one of Britain's greatest post-war scientists, Sir Harry Kroto, the winner of the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1996, right when he says that he holds the vice-chancellors responsible, in that they bleat about freedom but divert money earmarked for the sciences into soft courses, thereby eliminating science departments in favour of trendy cheap courses that train students for non-existent jobs. Is he not right?

Bill Rammell: I respect my hon. Friend's views on many issues, but I fundamentally disagree with him on this point. The key to the issue is the number of science places and we have increased the number of places for physics—the issue he raises—in the past 10 years and applications are going up. If he honestly believes that sitting in Whitehall dictating to university departments what subjects and areas they should teach is the way forward, I do not agree.

Nigel Evans: Surely the problem has to be attacked at both ends. It is strange that media studies are so popular, while science and language courses are removed from universities. The Minister is right that we need to enthuse youngsters to study science and languages. Last Friday, I visited the excellent Clitheroe royal grammar school in my constituency and saw the new language block that has just been completed. I do not care who opens it—the Secretary of State, who would be delighted to do so, or the shadow Secretary of State— [Interruption.]—but it will open in September. Even better, the school will open the facility to the community so that members of the public can learn foreign languages.

Bill Rammell: I think that every hon. Member will have heard the implicit rebuke of the Leader of the Opposition's position on grammar schools. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to do more to set out the opportunities that exist when young people engage in science subjects. We need to get across much more clearly the substantial additional graduate earnings premium that goes with undertaking the study of science. The really radical change in the study of modern languages that we are making is ensuring that by 2010 every child in every primary school can study a modern language.

Boris Johnson: I agree with much of what the Minister says about not dictating to universities, but does he agree that a fundamental problem is that the league tables posit a false equivalence between crunchy subjects, such as maths, physics, chemistry and modern languages, and other subjects in which it may be easier to get an A, with the result that the former are increasingly ghettoised in the independent sector? The result is that at Bristol university, some 48 per cent. of students doing modern languages are from the independent sector. Is it not time for the Minister to join us and stimulate the uptake of those subjects in all schools, boost applications to universities and help to keep university departments open by giving core academic subjects proper weighting in the league tables?

Bill Rammell: It is the hon. Gentleman catching up with us, rather than the other way round. The change that we are making in the league table to demonstrate the proportion of youngsters taking a GCSE in a science subject will be a significant step in the right direction. However, an area in which we agree is that the problem is fundamentally about stimulating student demand. The changes that we are making to the curriculum, the guarantee of two science GCSEs, the increased accessibility to triple science and the 250 after-school science clubs that we are rolling out are all part of the way forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in taking that programme forward.

Extended Schools

Karen Buck: If he will make a statement on funding for extended schools.

Jim Knight: Since 2003, the Government have invested £840 million to support the development of extended schools. The Government are determined to sustain that investment to enable all children to access extended services. More funding will be available over the next spending period, including an additional £217 million in 2010-11, to enable the most disadvantaged children and young people to access at least two hours a week of free after-school activities and activities during the school holidays.

Karen Buck: Extended schools can be of genuine benefit to children, parents and communities, but is it not true that the implied offer of wrap-around services, before and after school, with a range of activities, cannot be provided in schools such as those in my constituency for £10 per pupil per year? Some 1,000-pupil secondaries with very high levels of deprivation have received a derisory £6,000 for the whole year to provide extended school services. Will my hon. Friend investigate the way in which local authorities top-slice the Government grant for extended schools, and will he look again at how we fund extended schools in deprived areas that cannot sustain a charging policy so that they can provide a meaningful extended schools offer?

Jim Knight: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's support for extended schools and her acknowledgement of their effectiveness. She has been assiduous in her representations to the Minister for Children and Families and myself on the ability of children from deprived backgrounds to access extended services. We take seriously what she said about top-slicing, and it is something that we are happy to investigate. Of the nearly £180 million made available to local authorities in the last financial year, Westminster received £545,000, which includes capital funding and funding to a specific school as a full-service extended school. Of the £346,000 remaining, £263,000 was devolved to schools and £111,000 retained by the local authority. If my hon. Friend thinks that that is too much top-slicing, I am very happy to work with her on that.

Nick Gibb: Activities that take place in extended schools include homework clubs and remedial lessons in reading. Such remedial lessons would not be necessary if we got the teaching of reading right in the reception class in the first year of primary school. The Minister will be aware of research that shows the effectiveness of synthetic phonics in the teaching of reading. Following the Rose review and the changes to the national curriculum, what plans does the Minister have to assess synthetic phonics teaching in our primary schools? Will he ask Ofsted to assess the training given to teachers in the use of synthetic phonics and their teaching methods?

Jim Knight: A thorough assessment was carried out by Jim Rose, and only reported in March 2006. It follows significant improvements in key stage 2 in English over the past 10 years, and the number achieving the national standard has increased from 63 per cent. to 79 per cent., which means that 95,000 pupils a year have improved their reading. We commissioned the Rose review because we need to do better. We are in the process of undertaking the sort of training that the hon. Gentleman raised, and we will certainly make sure that that is effective, alongside the national reading campaign, "Every child a reader", and initiatives that I shall discuss when I respond to the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham).

Kerry McCarthy: I greatly welcome the rolling-out of the extended schools programme, which has made a genuine difference, particularly in the disadvantaged areas of my community, where some children live in overcrowded accommodation and do not have access to computers at home. However, head teachers have expressed concern that some parents view the programme as a glorified babysitting service. What more can be done to engage parents so that they take an interest in what their children do during those extra hours at school?

Jim Knight: The wrap-around child care from 8 am to 6 pm is just one part of the extended schools programme. There are five different aspects to the programme, including catch up and stretch and parental support. That component is something that needs to be developed to achieve exactly what my hon. Friend rightly raised.

Personal, Social and Health Education

Annette Brooke: Whether he plans to reform personal, social and health education.

Jim Knight: The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is currently reviewing the secondary curriculum, including personal, social and health education, and we expect to receive its final advice on 5 June.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for that answer. Given the Government's reluctance to make personal, social and health education compulsory, will he indicate how his Department will actually evaluate attempts to drive up quality? Obviously, content is important but I am sure he agrees that the quality of delivery is variable. What time will he set for improving the quality of that most important subject?

Jim Knight: The hon. Lady is right; quality is important. We are asking the QCA to report to us on that and we look forward to its recommendations. In the context of whether the subject is compulsory, it is important for the hon. Lady to understand that all five of the "Every Child Matters" outcomes are inspected by Ofsted. Part of that reporting includes how the school is doing on economic and personal well-being, so if schools are choosing not to teach PHSE, or not at a high enough quality, that will be identified by Ofsted. We want to make sure that PSHE is working well; we are investing in it and improving the amount of training in it. We are embedding SEAL—the social and emotional aspects of learning—in PSHE, which is proving successful in primary schools and will be rolling out to secondary schools, as well.

John Bercow: Given that a recent online survey of no fewer than 2,200 university students undertaken by the Terrence Higgins Trust, in conjunction with the National Union of Students, found that 10 per cent. of those university students did not know how to put on a condom correctly, 16 per cent. mistakenly supposed that putting on two was safer than putting on only one and that fully 25 per cent. wrongly imagined that other forms of contraception could equally well protect them from sexually transmitted diseases, does the Minister agree that we need to work harder and do more to bolster sex education, and that there is an increasingly compelling case in the national interest for making it compulsory?

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman makes a good case, but sex education is already compulsory in schools as part of the national curriculum, and in most cases it is delivered through PSHE. An increasing number of schools are deciding to provide on-site health advice as part of the extended services they offer, which we were talking about earlier, and we are certainly keen to see that develop.

Vulnerable Children

Sally Keeble: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of children's funds in supporting vulnerable children.

Beverley Hughes: The national evaluation of the children's fund reported in March 2006 and produced separate reports on five distinct groups of vulnerable children. Those groups of children were disabled, refugee and asylum seeker, black and minority ethnic, Gypsy Traveller and those at risk of committing crime and antisocial behaviour. The report showed that the children's fund was facilitating good progress in addressing the considerable scale and complexity of the needs faced by children in those most vulnerable groups.

Sally Keeble: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response. The children's fund in Northamptonshire is little known, but it has done outstanding work, particularly in tackling truancy and meeting the needs of minority children. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether that funding stream will be continued, and whether it will continue to be ring-fenced for early intervention so that it can maintain the good work it is doing already?

Beverley Hughes: I understand why my hon. Friend asks that question. As she knows, the children's fund goes to children's fund partnerships in about 100 local authorities. In the remaining 50 authorities, the fund is already pooled in the local area agreement of local authorities and their partners. Although the funding will continue, from 2008 it will be pooled in local area agreements in all local authorities, but I reassure my hon. Friend that I want to ensure that it remains identifiable as a distinct funding stream so that expenditure on important preventive services, in which the voluntary and community sectors have a particular role to play, will still be transparent. If people are concerned about the way the money is being spent locally, they can challenge it.

Further Education Funding

Anne Moffat: If he will make a statement on extending further education funding to support 17 to 19 year olds.

Phil Hope: Further education funding is available in England to support all young people aged 16 to 18 to undertake learning free of charge. Financial support is also available for those learners in the form of the education maintenance allowance. We are also extending free study to young adults aged 19 to 25 to study for their first full level 3 qualification from this September, supported by an expanded adult learning grant for those learners.

Anne Moffat: What plans do the Government have to extend the modern-day apprenticeship scheme for people in that age group and beyond it? Congratulations to the Government are in order for introducing it. I remember, Mr. Speaker, that when I was first elected to this place, I got some bad advice from a junior Whip, and you gave me a row when I made a contribution. I came over and apologised, and asked what I had done wrong. You said to me, "You took advice from the apprentice, not from the journeyman." That has stuck with me. The modern apprenticeship scheme represents a good working class principle, and credit for that worthy scheme should be given to the future deputy leader of the Labour party.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the modern apprenticeship scheme has been remarkably successful. As an apprentice to the Secretary of State, I learn a great deal. We have trebled the number of those apprentices which, as my right hon. Friend suggested earlier, was dealt a devastating blow by the Conservatives. We want to provide better alternative pathways for young people—as well as an academic pathway, there is a pathway through an apprenticeship and through the new diplomas that we will introduce, which will ensure that more 16 to 19-year-olds stay in full-time training and education.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Legal Advice (Publication)

Andrew Robathan: Whether he has discussed with the Minister of State for Justice the constitutional implications of publishing legal advice from Law Officers to the Cabinet.

Mike O'Brien: Yes. It is a long-standing view of Governments that Law Officers' advice is privileged and confidential, like other legal advice. A disclosure is made only in exceptional circumstances.

Andrew Robathan: Since we last discussed the matter in February, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), turns out to be a front runner in the deputy leadership contest for the Labour party, which may mean that she could become Deputy Prime Minister. That raises some important constitutional issues. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, she believes that the Law Officer's advice on Iraq should be published.  [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Lady has said it in public. We know that she has said that she believes that the Attorney-General's advice on Iraq should be published. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that full well. What is the stand on collective responsibility? What is the Government's policy on the matter, and does he think it will change at the end of June?

Mike O'Brien: The position of the Government is very clear. It has been stated repeatedly. It is that confidential legal advice is important because it allows candour between the lawyer and the client—in this case, Ministers. Without it, the lawyer may be tempted to temper his advice, when frankness is required. It is in the public interest that there should be good, frank legal advice. That is why there is a long-standing convention. However, collective responsibility is not a gag on all public discussion or debate by Ministers. It requires acceptance of Government policy. My right hon. and learned Friend accepts Government policy but has generated some ideas about the future. We will see how they evolve.

Dominic Grieve: The Solicitor-General knows that I broadly share his views about the difficulties of publishing Law Officers' advice, but he cannot escape the Government's collective responsibility on the issue as he has tried to do. If it is under discussion whether Law Officers' advice should be published in future and a Government Minister is stating that publicly, ought not the House to have an opportunity of understanding the direction in which the Government are moving and to debate an extremely important issue, otherwise collective responsibility collapses, the House is left at sea as to the Government's intentions, and the public begin to wonder whether there is any coherent and cohesive government taking place?

Mike O'Brien: Hyperbole ill becomes the hon. Gentleman, who is not often given to it, but I fear he has ventured into that area on this occasion. It is clear what the Government's policy is. It has been set out repeatedly, not least by myself from the Dispatch Box, and Government policy remains as it was under previous Governments. If the hon. Gentleman wants a debate, the Opposition have the right to nominate various debates. If he wants a debate on this topic, let him have one. It can take place in Opposition time. As far as the Government are concerned, we are clear what our position is. It is that we will stand by these conventions. It is right and proper that the Prime Minister indicated a few months ago that Ministers would have a wide ranging look at policy to review it and to generate discussion and ideas. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham has merely generated a few ideas. The hon. Gentleman should not get so wound up and anxious about it.

Simon Hughes: The Solicitor-General knows that it is obviously right that confidentiality should be the presumption on advice from Law Officers to Ministers, but will he accept that when Ministers come to Parliament and pray in aid that advice in support of a case that they are seeking to win—for example, to justify intervention in Iraq—that changes the game, which is an argument for opening up that advice? Will he accept that when the Constitutional Affairs Committee produces its report on Law Officers, we should debate how Law Officers are appointed, how they are accountable and how public the advice is that they give either to Parliament or to Ministers?

Mike O'Brien: It is obviously a matter for the business managers when and where we have debates. The Constitutional Affairs Committee is examining the issues, including the role of Law Officers, and we await its report with interest. The Government view remains the same on advice, and I can do no better than quote Lord Kingsland, who said this in the other place:
	"It would not, of course, be appropriate for Parliament to see the advice that the Attorney-General gave to the Government. Inevitably, any responsible Attorney-General is bound to have to assess all the arguments, some of which might be contrary to the final position that he takes. If that document should become public, it is as sure as night follows day that there would be a very big dispute about its merits. Nothing could be more damaging to the confidence of the soldier who is about to fight."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 May 2007; Vol. 691, c. 1026.]
	That summarises the Government view. Setting out the basis on which the Attorney-General has reached a view is fine, which is what we have done in the past, but we need to consider giving all the legal advice with a great deal more caution.

Antisocial Behaviour (Prosecutions)

Michael Fabricant: What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to improve prosecution rates in cases of antisocial behaviour by young people; and if he will make a statement.

Mike O'Brien: No full data are available in relation to the various different offences of antisocial behaviour, as distinct from other offences alleged to have been committed by young people. Overall last year, 121,648 cases were prosecuted against young people. Subject to the gravity of the offending, the CPS usually prosecutes a youth after he or she has had a reprimand or warning.

Michael Fabricant: Whether it is the leafy lanes of Lichfield or the back streets of Glasgow, Mr. Speaker, there is no question but that antisocial behaviour is very disturbing to neighbourhoods. The Solicitor-General will know that only half of those who breach antisocial behaviour orders are prosecuted with custodial sentences. What can the Solicitor-General do to ensure that there is a real deterrent to prevent ASBOs from being breached in order to maintain calm and pleasant neighbourhoods?

Mike O'Brien: The issue is important, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the Government view on tackling antisocial behaviour. He has rightly said that it is important that those orders should be complied with, and magistrates have powers to deal with young people, and indeed others, who breach ASBOs. Some breaches are serious and merit a serious remedy, but others are less serious. It is important that such matters are dealt with, but it is also important that the response of the courts is proportionate. The CPS takes proportionality into account when it decides how to respond to a breach in a particular case.

Fiona Mactaggart: Has the Solicitor-General looked at north Liverpool, where Judge Fletcher in the community justice centre is providing a model that should be followed elsewhere in order to tackle the prosecution of antisocial behaviour cases?

Mike O'Brien: I have not only looked at the data on that but have been up there and spoken to Judge Fletcher, who appears to be doing an excellent job. The community court system in north Liverpool, which brings all the agencies together at considerable expense, is difficult to remodel elsewhere. However, the pilot seems to be working very effectively, so we must look at it with a great deal of care to see whether there are lessons that we can learn for the future.

Justine Greening: We have already heard about the breach rates for antisocial behaviour orders. Community sentencing is particularly important for young people because two thirds of them will receive such a sentence if successfully prosecuted. Fifty per cent. of intensive supervision and surveillance programmes, which many young people get put on to when they are prosecuted, are also breached, but all that happens is that those 50 per cent. get put back on to the programme. Are not the Government successfully teaching young offenders that they can flout the law and nothing will happen to them, and is not that part of the problem as regards the growing numbers of young people who are being prosecuted?

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Lady is entirely wrong. She should have listened to what I said to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant)—that the courts have the powers to deal with these issues, but they need to do so proportionately. Some breaches are very serious and need to be dealt with as such; others are not so serious and need to be dealt with as such. It depends on the circumstances. Trotting out such statistics obscures rather than clarifies the real issues that face the courts on a day-to-day basis. Instead of criticising the way in which the courts deal with these issues, she should bear in mind that they have a very difficult job to do and some very difficult judgments to make. Criticisms of the sort that she makes are not worthy.

Prosecution Policy

Harry Cohen: What assessment he has made of consistency of prosecution policy between the Army Prosecuting Authority and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mike O'Brien: Both the CPS and the armed service prosecutors will apply the same evidential test—namely, whether there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction—and then decide whether there is a public interest in prosecuting. In the case of the armed service prosecutors, that includes the service interest.

Harry Cohen: The Army Prosecuting Authority dropped a case against British soldiers, despite lots of evidence having been on worldwide TV, saying that it had happened more than six months before. It claimed in its press release that the same applied to the civil authorities. Can the Solicitor-General confirm that if a thug beats someone up and lies low for six months, he will not be prosecuted despite the evidence? Is that the law, or has the Army Prosecuting Authority got it wrong?

Mike O'Brien: The Army Prosecuting Authority has to look at the evidence before it and decide whether a prosecution is able to take place with witnesses who can give effective evidence to secure that prosecution. If the evidential test is not passed, the prosecutors will not take the case forward; if it is passed, they can take it forward. They will then have to consider public interest issues. My hon. Friend appears to be talking about the evidential test. I am happy to discuss the issues with him further, but it seems from what he says that the evidential test was not passed.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Asset to the following Act:
	Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007

Control Orders (Absconders)

Dominic Grieve: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the three individuals subject to control orders who have disappeared and whose whereabouts are unknown.

John Reid: On Monday night, three British citizens absconded from their control orders. The control orders were imposed on them because it was believed that they wanted to travel abroad for terrorism-related purposes. Their control orders included obligations requiring them to surrender any travel documents and report each day to a local police station, and two of the individuals were required to phone a monitoring company each night. These two individuals failed to call the monitoring company on Monday evening. All three of them failed to report to the police station on Tuesday morning, as required by their control orders.
	Public safety is my top priority. Therefore I am not at all complacent about the risk that those individuals pose: they are dangerous and we can take nothing for granted, even though the Security Service's assessment is that they are not considered at this time to represent a direct threat to the public in the United Kingdom.
	Locating those individuals is obviously an operational matter for the police, and a significant investigation is under way. On police operational advice yesterday morning, and to assist the investigation, I approached the High Court to lift the anonymity orders for the three individuals. That was agreed by the High Court late yesterday afternoon. As a result, the police were able to make a public appeal as part of their ongoing investigation.
	I have never hidden from the House the fact that there are limitations and problems associated with the legal framework in which we must operate. As hon. Members know, I have consistently made it clear that control orders are far from being the best option. In my view, they are not even the second best option for tackling terrorist suspects. However, the Government operate under the constraints imposed upon us by Parliament, the courts and the law.
	Under our existing laws, control orders are as far as we can go. That is especially the case for British citizens who want to travel abroad. Before the control order legislation in 2005, with all its inadequacies, the Government had no counter-terrorist power to attempt to prevent even that.
	Unfortunately, within the limits of the existing legal framework, it is very difficult to prevent determined individuals from absconding. Nevertheless, I intend to do several things. First, I am already appealing to the House of Lords in several other control order cases about the interpretation of article 5 of the European convention on human rights on deprivation of liberty. We will consider other options—including derogation—if we have exhausted ways of overturning previous judgments on the issue.
	In the next few weeks, I will outline further measures to combat terrorism, which we propose to include in a new counter-terrorist Bill. I have always believed that the security of the nation and the protection of our people is not only the first obligation of Government, it is, and should be, the highest priority of every party in Parliament. I therefore hope that when we introduce the proposals, we can achieve a national consensus which places national security above party politics.

Dominic Grieve: May I first apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who is away attending the Prison Officers Association annual conference?
	The Home Secretary conveys the impression that the failure is the result of limitations and problems not of the Government's making. But is it not the case that many problems are entirely of the Government's making? The Home Secretary pointed out that these individuals are British nationals. On that basis, will he explain why it was being suggested yesterday that part of the blame lay with the House of Lords decision in the Belmarsh case, which was irrelevant because it applied only to foreign nationals? Was that not simply a piece of propaganda?
	If those individuals have left the country unchecked to fight abroad, as appears to be suspected, is it not the case that they have been helped by the lack of adequate border controls, especially embarkation controls—a subject that has consistently been raised in the House, and about which the Government have taken no adequate action?
	The control order powers that the Government obtained from Parliament in 2005 were extensive. May I remind the Home Secretary, in the light of his comments, that the House, including the Opposition, supported the powers, but fell out over whether there should be a sunset clause in the measure, not over the principle of control orders?
	If those individuals are deemed so dangerous that their photographs are circulated, why were they not subject to greater restrictions, some of which, including tagging, could have been imposed without having to derogate from article 5? What lessons have the Government learned from the previous case in which three individuals absconded when placed under control orders?
	The Home Secretary has hinted that draconian new powers are needed, yet the existing powers extend to house arrest, if the Government decide that there is such an emergency that that is justified. It is for the Government to determine whether there is a state of emergency. Is the Home Secretary saying that he will come to the House and say that there is an emergency in which the state is threatened? If so, when will he do that? Is it not the case that unless he does that, there is no possibility whatever of imposing derogating control orders, as they would simply be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights?
	It was suggested this morning that the Government might seek an extension to the 28-day pre-charge detention period. Will the Home Secretary confirm that that is completely irrelevant, because pre-charge detention can take place only when it is thought that there is an arrestable offence with which a person can be charged? The fact that the people in question are subject to control orders is a sign that they could not be arrested. Also, is it not a key failure that the Government have done absolutely nothing to bring forward measures that might facilitate bringing such individuals to justice? We have heard nothing whatever about allowing the use of intercept evidence, which might be a way forward. The fact that the Government now believe that the individuals may have committed criminal offences for which they ought to be tried is a clear indication of the Government's failure to take action on that point.

John Reid: I have rarely heard an Opposition spokesman wriggle so obviously. There was not one suggestion on how we might counter terrorism; every point was aimed at excusing the Opposition's record on this issue. Let me be straight with the hon. Gentleman on the point that he mentioned about the limitations placed on us, and the fact that we were limited in what we tried to do. His party voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, and against new control orders to tackle suspected terrorists who cannot be prosecuted or removed from the country. It voted against measures to make it an offence to glorify terrorism. The hon. Gentleman voted against the extension to 90 days of detention without charge for terror suspects. I could give a list of the measures that we brought before the House to strengthen our attack on terrorism and his party voted against. So high is the Opposition's emphasis on homeland security that 77 days after they sacked their shadow homeland security Minister, they still have not appointed a replacement. That is a measure of what is happening here.
	We will continue to bring before the House measures that we regard as necessary for the safety and security of the nation. I will continue to attempt to persuade the Opposition parties to move towards a national consensus on national security. I spent yesterday trying to do that with the Opposition Home Affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), and the Liberal Home Affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg). I identified areas where I hope that we can carry the matter forward, but one thing is certain: when the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) cast doubt on the fact that the threat to the life and liberties of the people of this country is higher than ever before, and is at the level of a national emergency— [Interruption.] He does nothing to help the fight against terrorism. Rather than scoring little party political points, perhaps he should join the fight.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a question session. I think that hon. Members should calm down and try to get to the facts; that is the important thing.

John Denham: When we consider the new counter-terrorism Bill, will my right hon. Friend reflect on two lessons from our experience so far? First, when we passed the control order legislation we left too much scope for interpretation by the courts, and that disappointed many of us who supported that legislation. Secondly, any new measures need to be the subject of the widest possible discussion across the country. Not many people understand the criteria according to which 17 out of the hundreds of people about whom we are concerned have been selected for control orders, while others have not. The maintenance of confidence in the measures that we need to take must be a matter for full discussion in the country as a whole.

John Reid: I have some sympathy with the first point made by my right hon. Friend, who I know has followed these matters with great interest. I also have sympathy with the argument that we should allow maximum time and room for discussion in an attempt to build a consensus. That is why I have promised that elements of the new counter-terrorism Bill will be brought forward to be discussed by the Home Affairs Committee, which he so ably chairs. It is also why I spent yesterday outlining some of those measures to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who speaks on these matters for the Conservative party, and to the Liberal spokesman. I truly hope that we can maximise the effort that we make in that direction.
	In addition, I have some sympathy with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) had to say about judicial interpretation of these matters. When I arrived at the Home Office, I found myself questioning how a control order could be placed on a suspected terrorist for only 18 hours, because that left six hours in which that suspect was free to go about his work. I was overruled by the courts, and told that the problem was that under our existing legal conventions, 18 hours was too long. As a result, I had to reduce the period to 14 hours.
	Let me be quite straight with the House, and say that these problems cannot be solved by charging more people, as some Opposition Members claim. Where there is sufficient evidence to charge people, we always do charge them. That is not the problem —[ Interruption. ] Just to mutter on about it is to avoid the question. The problem arises when we have information that is short of the threshold level that would allow people to be charged, but which suggests that they might be prepared to commit crimes that could result in the wholesale destruction of human life. We face a new form of conflict and threat: unless we are prepared to look at it in new ways, rather than just apply the old adages, we will never counter it adequately.

Jeremy Browne: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), who is attending the same conference as the Conservative shadow Home Secretary.

Anne McIntosh: The shadow Home Secretary!

Jeremy Browne: All parties in this House are committed to protecting our national security—and today's revelation is further worrying evidence of the limitations and ineffectiveness of control orders. Initially, the Government said that they would be a temporary measure, so will they now commit to implementing a more effective alternative? Will their forthcoming review of terrorism laws include a proper examination of the use of control orders, and of the role of the private monitoring companies that the Home Secretary mentioned a moment ago? Will he respond to concerns that the limited application of control orders is a result of restricted police resources rather than the product of any legal considerations?
	Finally, will the Government now consider seriously proposals made by the Liberal Democrats and others to allow intercept evidence in court, so that more terrorist suspects can be properly brought to trial?

John Reid: Let me deal first with the question of intercept evidence in court. We have been looking at that for a considerable time, and both Opposition Front-Bench teams know that the disadvantages so far outweigh the advantages that what they are suggesting meets with complete opposition from our security and intelligence services. They are the front line, charged with the national security of this country. Consistently, time after time, they have made it clear to both Opposition Front-Bench teams that they are opposed to that approach. When those who speak for the Opposition parties make that proposal, they should admit that they are disagreeing with those who are primarily charged with the nation's security.
	Secondly, even those of us who have been around long enough to become hardened to pieces of cynical political opportunism find it very difficult when the Liberal Democrats tell us that we are not being hard enough on terrorism. I merely remind the hon. Gentleman that he voted against the control orders that he now complains are not sufficiently strong, because he thought they were too strong in the fight against terrorism. The Liberal Democrats opposed control orders. They voted against the new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism, and against a panoply of other measures.
	Let us be straight, and let us be honest. Let us try to build a consensus, not in terms of what we argued about last year but in terms of an appreciation of a threat to the people of this country that is greater than anyone here can imagine. That description was given not to me but to the outgoing director general of M15, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, who was charged above all with countering terrorism in this country.
	There is a very serious threat—and I am the first to admit that the means we have of fighting it are so inadequate that I spoke this morning of our fighting with one arm tied behind our backs. The answer is not to tie another arm behind our backs but, through national consensus, to find a way of freeing all our abilities to fight terrorism. I have already embarked on an attempt to build a national consensus. As I said earlier, if we can do that, no one will be happier than me and no one will be better protected than the people of this country.

Andrew Dismore: I have great sympathy with my right hon. Friend, because the control order regime is clearly a very imperfect way of trying to deal with the problem, but I hope that he will not adopt the route of derogation. He said that he saw control orders as not even the second-best option. Perhaps he will tell us what he thinks is the best option. Does he agree with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, that the best option is prosecution? We are concerned about the fact that the existing control order detainees are not subject to continual review to establish whether there is enough evidence to prosecute them. Last summer we recommended a series of ways of making prosecution easier, one of which was the conversion of intelligence into evidence through the use of intercept. I heard what my right hon. Friend had to say about that, but the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General have said that they consider it an important weapon that would significantly strengthen their ability to prosecute. I hope that before my right hon. Friend presents his proposals he will give serious consideration to the Committee's recommendations, including that one.

John Reid: I repeat that we always want to prosecute when there is a level of evidence that is sufficient to reach the threshold for prosecution. That is self-evident, but it is not the question. The question is: how do we tackle terrorist suspects when we do not have a sufficient threshold of evidence to charge, but have sufficient information to be alerted, through the intelligence and other services, to the fact that they may be preparing to commit an act of wholesale human destruction? No Government and no party in this House can ignore that.
	My hon. Friend asked me what we would like to do. I do not need to pluck measures out of the air; I can point to measures that we have already presented to the House, which the House has rejected although the Government wanted them. We wanted to deport foreign terrorist suspects, but were prevented from doing so by the courts' interpretation of article 3 of the ECHR and particularly by the Chahal judgment, an outrageously disproportionate judgment stating that we cannot deport a terrorist suspect if there would be any threat to him if he were sent abroad. We must have regard to that, but we are prohibited from having regard to the threat that will be posed to the other 60 million people in the country if he remains here. That is outrageous.
	We sought to detain foreign terrorist suspects pending their deportation under part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, but the House of Lords ruled against us in 2004. We then introduced the control order regime in 2005. The Tories voted against it, and court judgments have subsequently weakened it. There is no need to tell me that we have an inadequate apparatus with which to fight terrorists. I know that. We have been asking for more, and the people who are the first to complain publicly that measures are too weak to tackle terrorism are the very people who are first in the queue to weaken every measure that we introduce.

John Maples: I think that we all acknowledge that the Government are in a very difficult position. It is ridiculous that we cannot either deport foreigners or detain them. I understand that one of those decisions, the one about deportation, results from the Chahal case—which, incidentally, concerned India, not Algeria or Libya—and that the decision about detention results from the Human Rights Act 1998. Is it not within the collective power of the Government and the House of Commons to remedy those problems, by amending the Human Rights Act and/or—because the Chahal case flows directly from the European convention—by seeking either a derogation from or an amendment to the convention? It is within our power to do those things, rather than blaming the courts for their interpretation of the law. We can change the law.

John Reid: The Chahal judgment took place under the Conservative Government. That is worth noting— [Interruption.] It is worth noting because those who claim that our problems stem from the Human Rights Act— [Interruption.] If Conservative Members listen a little, they may learn. Those who claim that our problems stem from the Human Rights Act miss the important point that the crucial Chahal judgment not only preceded the Human Rights Act, but preceded the Labour Government.
	Many of the problems with which we are grappling are due to a disjunction between the inherited legal conventions that were formulated, with great sincerity and admirable morality, in the middle of the last century, and the realities of today's conflict. That difficulty cannot be solved merely by lawyers legally interpreting the inherited legislation. It must be solved by politicians—as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) pointed out—addressing the disjunction; otherwise we will not overcome it.
	I have said that we will consider a range of measures, but let me also say to the hon. Gentleman—who made a substantial point—that when we try to change and strengthen the law in the House, it would help if his party supported us, because that too is part of the struggle against terrorism. I am trying to build consensus not only on the particulars of each case that we bring here, but on the generality of addressing the disjunction between the inherited legal conventions and the reality that we face.

Rob Marris: I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about intercept evidence, which is used in other countries. I also ask him to consider the interviewing of suspects after they are charged, which is currently not allowed, to increase the possibility of a successful prosecution. I must say that I am disappointed in the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). He is usually very constructive, but on this occasion he did not really propose anything, except the possibility of our using intercept evidence. The difficulty we face is that it is very difficult to balance the rights of the few against the rights of the many, and I salute my right hon. Friend for what he is trying to do to build consensus in this place. May I also suggest that, if he has not done so already, he should talk to retired members of the judiciary about proposed legislation to establish whether we can "get a heads up" in advance on what might be acceptable to the serving judiciary? Of course, he can only do that by talking to members of the retired judiciary, some of whom are down the Corridor.

John Reid: I entirely accept that we should speak to a range of people, including retired members of the judiciary, but at the end of the day this is a matter for politicians. It is not a matter for judges or lawyers. They are a vital tool in interpreting existing laws, but it is for politicians to address the historical disjunctions that arise because of changes in the world. It is for them to address the law of conflict as it currently exists and its inadequacies in terms of the nature of today's conflict, the law of peace and the disjunction between it and the nature of today's peace—for we currently have something between war and peace—and the nature of the threat that we face.
	In considering those issues in general, we must also consider measures in particular. My hon. Friend mentioned some of them. I will certainly consider measures such as post-charge questioning, and I will attempt to build a consensus, but let me briefly make two points. First, it is clear to me personally that, strategically and in the long run, the disbenefits to this country of using intercept evidence in court, with all its implications, outweigh the benefits. This country is not like any other country in terms of our intercept capabilities and its importance to us. Secondly, I say to the whole House that if we ever reach the stage of mass destruction—if a plane, or two planes, come down over the Atlantic, or something horrendous like that happens—the people of this country will not ask us why we introduced measures to strengthen the fight against terrorism; they will demand to know why, given all the signals and signs and indications that this was coming, the House did not act immediately and unanimously, with consensus, to strengthen all our laws against terrorism. That is the question that will be asked of us.

Patrick Mercer: I completely agree with the Home Secretary that this must go beyond and above party politics. Given that, why does he not act and introduce a proper and effective border security force that would help to seal our borders? It would not completely eradicate the problem, but it could be done and it must go beyond merely putting passport inspectors into uniform.

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman. First, we have doubled the resources going into border enforcement. We have increased the powers and we are introducing new powers for those who operate on our borders. We are introducing new technology. We are demanding that there be biometric visas, starting next year with 100 out of the 200 countries. I hope that we shall get the hon. Gentleman's party's support for that.
	Secondly, although it is not sufficient in itself, an absolutely necessary element of the fight against terrorism, fraud, crime and illegal immigration is ID cards management and biometrics. I hope that, even at this stage, the Opposition parties will come to their senses on that.
	Thirdly, I have refocused the whole of the Home Office on all those challenges: on mass migration and the need to tackle illegal immigration, on fair and effective immigration, on international crime, on fraud and all the elements that go with it—which latterly have been linked to mass migration and to terrorism—and on the fight to counter terrorism. I am doing all those things, and on top of that I want to try to build national consensus. Therefore, I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman, and—who knows?—in this new emollient spirit, having failed to replace him, the Conservative party might even reappoint him.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the Home Secretary accept that public confidence in the operation of our anti-terrorist laws is important? The escape of three people who were under control orders will shake that, but may I urge on him two steps that would help to renew and to strengthen public confidence? I urge the first on Opposition Members: that we renew the agreement across the House, because when the Government have attempted to take difficult anti-terrorism measures the split with the Opposition has undermined public confidence. Secondly, I urge him to resist the siren calls for derogation from the Human Rights Act because public confidence depends on the knowledge that Britain maintains the highest human rights standards in fighting terrorism.

John Reid: On the first point, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend—she might be surprised to know that I agree with her on the second point, too. Much preferable to derogation from or abandonment of the European convention on human rights is a willingness and understanding across Europe—I think that such understanding is growing rapidly among Interior Ministers—that we have to build on the convention to ensure that it not only enshrines all those sentiments that were formed, correctly and understandably, in the middle of the previous century, but incorporates the problem that we face today.
	Let me put it simply. The European convention on human rights was intended to defend the individual from the unparalleled destructive capacity of the fascist state. That is what gave rise to it. People did not envisage at that time that the state and the community might now be under threat from the unparalleled destructive capacity of fascist individuals working in networks. That is what we face today. The arbitrary imposition of one's will on another by destructive power is fascism, whether it emanates from Europe or any other area. We now face a historical development that requires all of us to build on the European convention on human rights, strengthen it and ensure that the most fundamental of all rights—the right to life and to protection of that life—without which no other right—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the Home Secretary.

Evan Harris: The Home Secretary talks about this being a matter for politicians and, indeed, for Parliament. On parliamentary scrutiny of control orders, may I draw his attention to the recently published Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the renewal of control orders? Our first recommendation stated:
	"In our view, a debate on a motion to approve an affirmative resolution is a wholly inappropriate procedure for renewal of provisions of such significance. To fail to provide an opportunity to amend the legislation is also, for the second year running, a serious breach of commitments made to Parliament. Parliament is being deprived once again of an opportunity to debate in detail and amend the control orders regime in the light of experience of its operation".
	Therefore, will he give an undertaking that there will be an opportunity for politicians and for Parliament to debate the detail of the regime so that we can try to avoid some of the problems that he is facing?

John Reid: There will be two opportunities. The first will arise in or around July, when I think the order must be renewed. Secondly, I guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that the scope of the counter-terrorism Bill, although it will not in itself achieve the promised consolidation—that will be done afterwards—will be sufficiently wide to raise all matters that would have been raised under a consolidation Bill. Therefore, there will be two opportunities to have those discussions.

Julian Brazier: I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement that he is examining the possibility of a derogation from article 5. He rightly says that one case arose before the domestic legislation was introduced, but the fact remains that France, Germany and even Holland are able to deport foreign terrorist suspects. This country has, so far, failed to deport any.

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. First, it is not true that we have failed to deport any. We have, as it happens, deported quite a lot of people, including foreign national prisoners—thousands of them. Secondly, it is not true that in France, Italy or wherever it is easy to deport people. Only last week, I spoke to the former Italian Prime Minister, Giuliano Amato, who is now the Interior Minister, and shared with me his problems in doing that. I know from my many discussions with Nicolas Sarkozy that that is the position in France, too. Indeed, the issue of immigration was an elemental part of the campaign when he was elected President. I have also discussed the matter with German Interior Minister Schäuble. All those countries have the same problems, but they have different legal systems. The different legal system in France permits it to detain people under inquisition for much longer than is allowed here, which is one of the reasons we raised the possibility of longer detention here. The hon. Gentleman's party voted against it.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We now move on to the business question.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Jack Straw: The business of the House for the week commencing 4 June will be— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Leave the Secretary alone. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was not pleased about not being called. There is other business, including Back-Bench business. Do not complain if you do not get called, because you do well.

Jack Straw: The business of the House for the week commencing 4 June will be as follows:
	Monday 4 June—Second Reading of the Legal Services Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 5 June—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill, followed by a debate on Darfur on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Wednesday 6 June—Opposition Day [13th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 7 June—Second Reading of the Rating (Empty Properties) Bill.
	Friday 8 June—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 11 June will include:
	Monday 11 June—Opposition Day [14th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on 7 and 14 June will be:
	Thursday 7 June—A debate on the report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on coastal towns.
	Thursday 14 June—A debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on drug classification.
	I should like to make two other brief announcements. I have issued a written ministerial statement today regarding oral statements and notice being given on the Order Paper. It widens the criteria for giving notice of oral statements. I am grateful for the agreement of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Leader of the House, and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). We aim to ensure that notice on the Order Paper is given wherever possible, following my office's notification to the House. The Government retain the freedom to make statements without prior notice.
	Lastly, following the Modernisation Committee's recommendations on the legislative process, which the House accepted, the Legal Services Bill has been selected for a pilot to evaluate the impact of tabling explanatory statements to amendments in Public Bill Committees. Guidelines for Members wishing to table explanatory statements with their amendments are available from the Public Bill Office.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for providing the future business and for his other announcements.
	The Home Secretary has just told us that the Government will introduce a new counter-terrorism Bill, but we were told in the Queen's Speech that there would be a criminal justice Bill. None has been forthcoming, so will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Prime Minister designate has dropped the Bill?
	In response to the urgent question, the Home Secretary just reported that three terror suspects subject to control orders had absconded, which means that a third of those under control orders are now missing. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked the Home Secretary a number of very specific questions about control orders legislation and related matters, but the Home Secretary did not answer a single one of them, preferring to talk about where the blame lies for the particular problems that the Government face. I acknowledge that the Home Secretary said that the debate on the counter-terrorism Bill would be wide ranging, but I believe that it would be beneficial to have a full debate in Government time before that Bill—in other words, a debate not on a Bill, but on the operation of control orders. May we have such a debate?
	That is not the only problem to which the Home Secretary has admitted this week. The number of Britons with serious overseas convictions that the Department has failed to process is four times higher than the Home Secretary previously admitted to Parliament. They include people convicted of murder, manslaughter and sexual offences, some of whom have since worked with children. May we have a debate on the protection of the public?
	A year ago, the Home Secretary took up his new position. He described his new Department as "not fit for purpose", said that he would fix it in 100 days, harassed the Prime Minister to make him security supremo, divided the Department into two and then announced his resignation two days before the division came into effect. Following this week's latest fiascos, may we have a debate on whether the Home Secretary will leave his Department "fit for purpose"?
	It is reported that the first the Lord Chief Justice heard about the division of the Department and the creation of the Ministry of Justice was when he read a newspaper article by the Home Secretary. Lord Phillips says that the judiciary could rule that the Lord Chancellor is in breach of his statutory duty to protect the independence of the courts and that we need "a fundamental review". The Justice and Home Secretaries might soon be on the Back Benches, but may we have a debate on the Ministry of Justice?
	On Tuesday, the Government announced a two-month delay in the introduction of home information packs, which will start in August, before the "consultation" ends. Only a quarter of the required assessors have been trained, four-bedroom houses are being sold as three-bedroom houses with a games room and one in 10 people think a HIP is a sexually transmitted disease— [Laughter.] Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Minister for Housing and Planning cannot agree on whose fault it is, so may we have a debate on ministerial responsibility for this farce?
	Five out of six of Labour's deputy leadership candidates want to be Deputy Prime Minister, but I read that the Leader of the House has his eyes on the job. I understand, however, that the Education Secretary says that that will happen "over my... dead body"—that is the censored version of the quote. The Chancellor's camp says that there might not be a Deputy Prime Minister
	"because Prescott has made such a mess of it".
	May we have a debate on the Deputy Prime Minister's role?
	Amidst all this mess, the Prime Minister is clinging to his job like David Brent, saying that there are
	"things I am right in the middle of".
	He is obviously looking to his legacy, but right now, is not his legacy a property market in confusion, a Home Office in shambles and the Department of Health in crisis?

Jack Straw: The right hon. Lady's HIP joke was genuinely good, so progress is being made.

John Bercow: Don't sound so surprised!

Jack Straw: It seems that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is surprised as well. If I have achieved anything over the past year, it is to raise the standard of humour that we get from the right hon. Lady.
	The criminal justice Bill is in hand. As for specific questions on control orders, I usually have a lot of time for the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), but I thought that he gave a lamentable performance in which he could not bring himself to make any constructive points. Presumably, he had been ordered by the powers-that-be in his leader's office to try to mix it. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is rarely accused of brevity, answered all the questions put to him. There will be every opportunity to put those questions again when the counter-terrorism Bill is debated.
	There has been a significant improvement in the performance of the Home Office over the past year. Inevitably, the Opposition have to make these points, particularly when they get to the mid-way sag—having enjoyed a boost in the polls, they discover that it is all running away, as I recall from when we were in that position—but I can provide the right hon. Lady with some therapy for that feeling. She has many more Opposition days left. I have already criticised her side for wasting good Opposition time, but if she wants to table debates and motions criticising particular Ministers, she is welcome to do so. On both occasions when the Opposition have done so, they have not proved very successful, but that does not mean that the right hon. Lady should not try again.
	As for the introduction of the Ministry of Justice, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 lays specific duties on the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice in respect of the protection of the judiciary. The current Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, has that as his highest priority. Frankly, I do not see the right hon. Lady's difficulty.
	On the right hon. Lady's peroration, which was not quite as good as her joke, I would say that once again the Conservative party is not quite where the public is. The Conservatives have been trying to make an awful lot of hay about what I regard as the sensible handover period. Meanwhile, it seems that 55 per cent. of the public today—I cite opinion polls only where they are to our advantage, and I do not wish to depart from that practice—believe that the Prime Minister is "absolutely right" to stay on until 27 June, while fewer than a third believe that he should not. The truth is that, as well as the things that often happen in government, we have shown great energy this week, with a new planning policy—applauded by many, including the CBI—announced on Monday; an energy policy essential to safeguarding our energy supplies, about which Conservative Members cannot make up their minds; and, very shortly, an excellent waste strategy, which includes dealing with waste by the Opposition, to be announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Barry Sheerman: If my right hon. Friend had been in the Chamber last Friday, he would know that I had four minutes to introduce my private Member's Bill, which would have guaranteed a package of measures for young people aged between 16 and 18. Of course, at the end of the four minutes, the Government Whip shouted "Object"—[Hon. Members: "Ah".] May we have a debate on how best to support young people aged 16 to 18 and on what we should do about the large number who are not in employment, education or training—the NEETs? It should be a priority: the Government have done so many good things in education and skills, but we really need some urgent action on this issue.

Jack Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's great frustration. I have to say, quite separately, that, having thought about it, I do not think it is possible to change the basic procedure for dealing with private Members' motions. I am looking at whether there is a better way of responding to the major issues raised in private Members' Bills from both sides of the House, whether or not the text of the Bill can be fitted into legislation. There will be an opportunity for a wide-ranging debate in the next Session when we introduce our proposals to raise the education leaving age to 18. Meanwhile, I will certainly look for opportunities of the kind that my hon. Friend suggests.

David Heath: On the urgent question that we just heard, the Leader of the House will know that the Serious Crime Bill contains provisions introduced by the noble and learned Lord Lloyd of Berwick to allow for the admissibility of intercept evidence. I know that the Leader of the House is strongly against that, and that the security services have expressed serious reservations. The right hon. Gentleman will know, however, that senior police officers and the prosecuting authorities support the admissibility of such evidence. May I ask him in all seriousness not to introduce the Bill in this House until there has been an opportunity for serious talks between the parties and with others on how we can create a regime under which that evidence is admissible, so that we can get more successful prosecutions? It should be used not in every case but in those where it is appropriate.
	Has the Leader of the House seen the evidence submitted by the Lord Chief Justice to the Constitutional Affairs Committee on Tuesday, revealing the depth of disquiet among the judiciary about the introduction of the Ministry of Justice, and opening the possibility that the Lord Chief Justice might make a formal statement to Parliament under section 5 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005? How would such an occasion be managed in this House? When we return, may we in any case have a statement from the Ministry of Justice about its relationship with the judiciary?
	May we have a debate on the regulation of financial services? The financial ombudsman is apparently receiving 1,000 complaints a week from the public about bank charging, there is clear evidence of high street banks bullying those who complain, and there has still been no action on the Cruickshank report. Such a debate could also cover the monopoly position of a small number of accountancy firms undertaking corporate audit—another serious issue.
	Lastly, may we have a statement on bonuses? If the Home Office feels that the shambles that it has created over the past year is worth £3.6 million in bonus payments to staff, perhaps we should have a statement on what bonuses have been paid in the Department of Health, given the requirement for the Secretary of State to apologise to the House sometimes once and sometimes twice a week, or in the Department for Communities and Local Government, given the fiasco on HIPs, or in the Treasury, given the introduction of a tax credit system that has cost more than £9 billion in fraud and administrative failure. What exactly are we paying bonuses for?

Jack Straw: Intercept evidence is an important issue, and I am happy to pass on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about talks between the parties. Indeed, confidential discussions on the issue have already taken place with the other parties. No one who wants to see more criminals, especially terrorist suspects, convicted of crimes of which they are guilty wants to see good evidence unnecessarily excluded from the courts. There is no ideological issue about the reluctance of the Government and the intelligence agencies to have intercept evidence adduced in court. Indeed, we supported the previous Conservative Government's arrangements to ensure that evidence from planted microphones—intrusive surveillance arrangements—could be adduced in court. The problem is to determine whether the disadvantages, which I promise the hon. Gentleman are huge, outweigh the advantages.
	I have discussed this matter endlessly with Lord Lloyd, ever since he recommended a separate regime for terrorist suspects seven or eight years ago. I do not happen to think that his proposals are workable, but I am as open minded about this as anyone else, as are my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General. If we could find a way through this, we would. I am not saying that I know best because I was responsible for the agencies involved. I promise the hon. Gentleman that, having examined the issue with enormous care, I have yet to find a safe way through that would not threaten our security in many other ways. I am not saying that that is the best judgment; it is currently my judgment, and I am open to arguments to the contrary. Either Opposition party could be in government at some stage, and it is important that they should not impale themselves on promises that they cannot deliver.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Lord Chief Justice. My noble Friend Lord Falconer and I, and all of us who know the noble Lord Phillips and his colleagues in the judiciary, have the highest regard for them, and for the importance of maintaining their independence. If a statement is made under section 5 of the Constitutional Reform Act—I hope that there will not be—I will consider urgently with my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip the ways in which it could be replicated here.
	I note the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on bank charges. He also mentioned bonuses. Home Office staff do one of the most difficult jobs in the civil service. It is the nature of what might laughingly be called its customers—prisoners, asylum seekers and others—that they do not actually want to be its customers. We should not have a go at its staff, who are doing a very difficult job. If bonuses help to raise the morale of people who have volunteered to do that difficult work, so much the better. Sadly, Ministers are not eligible for bonuses; otherwise, we would all be putting in for them. This is not a proposal for the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it would not have his support. Patient satisfaction with the health service has never been higher, and the United Kingdom now ranks top overall in relation to the comparative health care systems in Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United States.

Jim Devine: May we have a debate in Government time on the role of the management of Tesco? In my constituency today, Tesco drivers are on strike for the first time ever because the company has unilaterally tried to reduce their terms and conditions and derecognised their trade union. On Monday evening, it sent taxis scuttling round my constituency issuing redundancy notices to its own staff. Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying to the fair-minded people of Britain that, when they go shopping tomorrow, they should boycott Tesco and support—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A question should be about the business of the week after the recess. Hon. Members should not make statements like that against any organisation.

Jack Straw: I take full note of my hon. Friend's great concern about this matter, and I will look for an opportunity for him to debate it.

Stewart Hosie: Yesterday, BP pulled out of a £500 million project to develop a carbon capture and storage system at Peterhead. It was to have been based on what would have been the world's first hydrogen refinery, with the waste carbon dioxide being pumped into the decommissioned Miller field. BP has pulled out because of the delay in the Government-sponsored competition to decide who should build the project. At Scottish questions on 27 February this year, the Secretary of State for Scotland said on behalf of the Government:
	"We will reach a decision within months—in the course of the year."—[ Official Report, 27 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 749.]
	On the same day, the Minister for Science and Innovation, when warned of the risks of delay, said that the Government's plans were
	"not incompatible with the Miller field decommissioning time scale."—[ Official Report, Westminster Hall, 27 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 247WH.]
	It would appear that that is not now the case. With the announcement in the White Paper that the competition will not now be launched until November, BP has pulled out of the project. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a debate in Government time, with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry here to explain why the Government have effectively sabotaged this project, and the 1,000 construction jobs that went with it, why they took no heed of the warnings about the dangers of delay, and what might yet be salvaged from this mess?

Jack Straw: There has been no sabotage, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, of the project: none whatever. Carbon capture remains an important part of the Government's overall strategy, as it does that of industry. On his basic point, I shall certainly look at whether we can have a debate on the matter.

David Taylor: It is now four years since the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 came into force. Has the Leader of the House seen the annual report of the Assets Recovery Agency for 2006-07, which reveals that £125 million was recovered last year—Lamborghinis, racehorses, luxury mansions and so on? May we have a debate after the recess on how we can move further and faster with the ARA to deprive career criminals of their millionaire lifestyles?

Jack Straw: I will certainly look at that. I would like to applaud the agency for its work. Inevitably, there were birth pains, but now it is doing extremely well in recovering assets.

Greg Knight: May we have a debate on surveillance and camera use in the United Kingdom? Is the Leader of the House aware of the recent comments from Ian Redhead, the deputy chief constable of Hampshire, who has questioned the installation of CCTV cameras in areas of low crime and called for a full review of the rules surrounding the use of speed cameras? At a time when these concerns are increasing, why are the Government relaxing the rule concerning the deployment of speed cameras? Could it be that this has more to do with revenue-raising than road safety?

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman's last point is wrong. All of us who have been caught by speed cameras—that includes me, in 1993—are jolly irritated at the time.

Nigel Evans: How fast were you going?

Jack Straw: I was doing 48 mph. I was irritated about it at the time. Nonetheless, we have to recognise that the introduction of speed cameras has greatly helped road safety and reduced deaths. On the wider issue, the matter is the subject of an inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman put forward evidence.

Keith Vaz: May we have a debate as a matter of urgency on the report that has just been published by the regulator into the allegations of racism on Channel 4 during "Big Brother"? My right hon. Friend will have noted the comments of Channel 4, which offered no apology, no condemnation of racism and no resignations. Does he agree that this is a very serious issue—the first time that the regulator has applied this sanction to a public sector broadcaster—and that it is very important that we have a debate on the issue?

Jack Straw: It is. Given the fact that this is the first time that the regulator has found in this way, the board of Channel 4 needs to consider the overall implications of allowing such material to be broadcast and what that does for its reputation and that of the UK.

Andrew Rosindell: Does the Leader of the House agree that the Whitsun recess gives him an ideal opportunity to get his toolbox out and to carry out the much awaited repairs to the roof of Portcullis House, to ensure that the flag of our country can fly there for the first time? Does he agree that 2 June, the anniversary of Her Majesty's coronation, would be an ideal time for the flag to fly for the first time?

Jack Straw: Yes, I agree and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter again. I am promised that I will not need to get my toolbox out, as the work has already taken place. I threatened the powers-that-be here that the hon. Gentleman and I would go up there and put up the flag. I am also promised that the first occasion on which the flag will be flown is on the 54th anniversary of Her Majesty's coronation on 2 June.

Diana Johnson: May I ask for an early debate on the rules that local authorities must follow when disposing of shares? This is in relation to the decision of the Liberal Democrat-controlled council to sever any links it has with Kingston Communications, after 100 years, without public discussion, debate or consultation.

Jack Straw: I find the approach of the Liberal Democrat-controlled Hull city council quite extraordinary. I know for certain that were the Liberal Democrats in opposition there and a Conservative council had done that, they would be raising Cain about this. It is utterly irresponsible and takes no proper cognisance of heritage and the unique contribution that Hull Telecommunications —now Kingston Communications—has made to the city of Hull.

Nicholas Winterton: I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), but may I turn the attention of the Leader of the House to this House and the way in which it operates? He will be aware that the Committee that he chairs with some panache is to report shortly on the role of the Back Bencher and the use of non-legislative time. Will he give me and the House an assurance that a debate on the subject will take place in this House while he is Leader of the House? As the right hon. Gentleman chairs the Committee, it is important that he should lead off the debate and guide the House in terms of making it more relevant to the people of this country and to Back Benchers.

Jack Straw: I cannot give him that assurance because, like lunatics in prison in days of old, Ministers of the Crown serve entirely at Her Majesty's pleasure and we have no idea when that pleasure is going to come to an end.

Tom Watson: May we, with as much Government time as is necessary, debate the future of grammar schools?

Jack Straw: Yes. Last week, I promised the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)—I am sorry that she did not return to the matter—an opportunity in Government time to debate Conservative policy. We will do anything we can to facilitate wider debate by the Conservatives and we will lay on Government time. I remind the right hon. Lady that, in 2001, she spoke out in this House against "a vendetta" against grammar schools. I hope that she is applying the same strong language that she used back in 2001 to her own leader, who seems to have adopted quite gratuitously a vendetta against grammar schools.

Christopher Fraser: Network Rail has confirmed recently that serving prisoners are carrying out maintenance work on Britain's railways. My constituents use the railway line that goes through Potters Bar, the scene of the devastating crash in 2002, so railway safety is a key concern to them. Will the Leader of the House give time for a debate on this important policy because we need reassurance that safety standards are being maintained and respected on all our railway lines?

Jack Straw: I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Notwithstanding the fact that there have been some terrible railways accidents, including the one at Potters Bar, we heard yesterday from Ian McAllister, the chairman of Railtrack, that the recent period has been one of the safest on record; so it should be. Railtrack and everybody else—

Nicholas Winterton: Network Rail.

Jack Straw: Apologies. Network Rail and all the others working in the industry have safety as their first priority.

Martin Salter: My right hon. Friend will be aware of early-day motion 1540:
	 [That this House notes that the House of Commons guidance note Freedom of Information and Members' Correspondence with Public Authorities published in December 2005 makes it clear that a public authority may be required to release a copy of hon. Members' correspondence if it receives a relevant request even though constituents may not be aware of the risk of material being disclosed; believes that it is absolutely essential that constituents are able to contact their hon. Member on a confidential basis; supports measures to protect from disclosure correspondence from constituents and their representatives to hon. Members and from hon. Members on behalf of constituents and their representatives to public authorities but believes that all other matters relating to the administration of the House, including hon. Members' allowances, budgets, use of contractors, purchasing policy and other matters, should be subject to public disclosure on an annual basis; and calls upon the Leader of the House to table a motion to this end to be voted upon by hon. and right hon. Members.]
	It supports the protection of constituents' correspondence with their MP from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, but also calls for the annual publication of all matters relating to the administration of this House, including MPs' allowances. Will he table a motion at the earliest opportunity, enabling hon. Members to vote on this matter?

Jack Straw: I certainly recognise my hon. Friend's wish, which is shared by the whole House, to ensure that whatever happens in respect of the protection of MPs' correspondence, the publication scheme in respect of Members' allowances and expenses continues. I shall give serious consideration to his suggestion and consult the Opposition parties about the matter.

George Young: Is not the reason why 55 per cent. of the country wants the Prime Minister to stay that they do not want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take over? Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the Chancellor has said that when he is transubstantiated into Prime Minister, he wants to strengthen Parliament, which I welcome. May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House, who is also the Chancellor's campaign manager, that there will be no unilateral changes? Will he also assure us that any plans for strengthening Parliament will be fully debated and that the next Prime Minister will not do what the last one did and introduce unilateral changes that had the effect of weakening Parliament?

Jack Straw: I do not think that the changes that have been made have weakened Parliament, but we can debate this matter. Meanwhile I will send to the right hon. Gentleman transcripts of a series of lectures that I have given on the subject, in an attempt to introduce some balance.  [Interruption.] They are entertaining reading on balmy summer nights with a drink.
	Being consistent with my policy of quoting opinion polls only when they are in our favour, may I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention a survey which showed not only that 55 per cent. of the public wish the Prime Minister to stay on until 27 June but increasing support for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's takeover of that post—which will be not a transubstantiation, but a translation?

David Winnick: Regarding the possible future progress of the private Member's Bill debated last Friday, did my right hon. Friend hear the Information Commissioner say on the radio today that his office has not received a single complaint from Members of Parliament about correspondence? Bearing in mind the fact that the amendment that has since been tabled to the Bill will not satisfy opponents of it such as me, may I suggest that the best possible way forward is for the Bill which, unfortunately, was agreed to last Friday should not be further debated but be buried? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the decision taken last Friday was a collective blow to the reputation of this House?

Jack Straw: I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this matter, as do some Opposition Members. I have read the record of the debate. The issue of MPs' expenses, which has attracted a lot of attention in the newspapers, has been the subject of further consideration by the Bill's promoters and supporters. The Bill has now passed to another place, and what it does about it is entirely a matter for it. I note the Information Commissioner's remarks, but all I can say is that, as people who follow business questions will be aware, last October or November the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and one of his Kent colleagues drew the House's attention to the matter of the possible publication of confidential correspondence issued on behalf of constituents.

Nigel Evans: I see that the Secretary of State for Health is present, and I am glad about that as I wish to ask for a debate on the postcode lottery. The Leader of the House knows that I have used business questions as an opportunity to raise the issue that some of my constituents have not been able to access certain cancer drugs although they are made available in other health trusts. Today,  The Sun reports the story of Corporal Nick Lock who, sadly, has stomach and liver cancer. His health trust says that he cannot have access to the cancer drugs that he needs in order to give him at least a chance of survival, yet the same drug is made available in Scotland. Why are drugs being made available in one part of the United Kingdom yet being denied to people in other parts of the UK?

Jack Straw: All of us have personal contact with people suffering from cancer so all of us understand how distressing the issue of the availability of such drugs is. However, I have two points to make. First, the differences between Scotland and England and Wales are not to do with a postcode lottery. It is a consequence of devolving power over health matters to Scotland, which is bound to do some things differently; otherwise, there would have been no point to devolution. We do other things that are then quoted against Scottish politicians. That is part of the nature of devolution.
	Secondly, I cannot comment on the case the hon. Gentleman raises except to offer the greatest sympathy to the patient, but I can say that, overall, the effectiveness of cancer treatments and the likelihood of survival have greatly increased in England and Wales because of investment and improvements in medical science here.

David Anderson: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 690 on the regulation of private military security companies?
	 [That this House welcomes the recent War on Want report entitled Corporate Mercenaries which examines the role of mercenaries and private military security companies (PMSCs) in conflict zones around the world; shares its concerns over the exponential growth of PMSCs since the invasion of Iraq; notes that PMSCs work alongside regular soldiers providing combat support in conflict situations, yet remain unregulated and unaccountable leaving open the potential for human rights violations; further notes that problems posed by proliferation of PMSCs were highlighted in a Green Paper in February 2002 that originated in a request from the Foreign Affairs Committee but that almost five years later there is still no United Kingdom legislation regulating PMSCs; believes that self-regulation by the industry is not appropriate in this instance; and urges the Government to move towards binding legislation to control the PMSC sector as an urgent priority.]
	Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Iraq, for every British soldier there are six private soldiers? Is it not now time for there to be a Foreign Office statement—an update of the Green Paper of 2002—on whether we will ever regulate these people?

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend and I will try to arrange an update.

Justine Greening: The Leader of the House will recall that I recently asked in business questions for a debate on young people and social mobility. I subsequently applied for a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate on that topic, but I seek his advice—I was unable to secure it, because the topic of social mobility cuts across several Government Departments and therefore also cuts across ministerial remits. Additionally, no ministerial remit has a specific responsibility for social mobility. Eventually, the best I could do was to have a debate entitled, "Young People and Social Exclusion", which was handled by the Cabinet Office. Can the Leader of the House give me any advice on how we can debate in this place this important topic which cuts across several Departments?

Jack Straw: The hon. Lady raises an important point. I will arrange to meet her to talk about how we can have more effective so-called cross-cutting debates, and I will make an announcement to the House.

David Davies: May we have a debate on the Human Rights Act 1998, which after the latest Home Office debacle seems to be nothing more than a charter for criminals, terrorists and lawyers of sybaritic tastes, many of whom appear to be well connected with members of the establishment?

Jack Straw: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate on the Human Rights Act, but I would like to arrange a debate in order to explain a few things to him. First, that Act was welcomed by the Opposition on Third Reading after I, as Home Secretary at that time, had secured a number of amendments to it. Secondly, the problems that have now arisen, which are often labelled Human Rights Act problems, relate to our being signatories to the European convention on human rights, and nobody proposes that we should abrogate our signature to that. To disabuse the hon. Gentleman still further, let me tell him that it was drafted by a Conservative lawyer, David Maxwell-Fyffe, who later became Lord Kilmuir, a distinguished Conservative Lord Chancellor. It was Britain under a Conservative Government which, quite correctly, led the way in getting every country of the Council of Europe signed up to that.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have two statements this afternoon and other business, so we must now move on.

Modernising Medical Careers

Patricia Hewitt: I wish to make a statement about modernising medical careers. In my written statement to the House on 15 May 2007, I announced the plans for making offers in the first round and the principle behind the further round of the modernising medical careers specialist recruitment. I welcome yesterday's decision by the High Court in the judicial review brought by Remedy UK while, of course, acknowledging the criticisms that the judgment contains. I also welcome the decision of Remedy UK not to appeal against the judgment. I will consider the comments of Mr. Justice Goldring on costs.
	I well understand the uncertainty that problems with the medical training application system have caused junior doctors and their families. We need to ensure that we learn the lessons from what has happened, which is why I asked Sir John Tooke to establish an independent review. The membership of that review has now been agreed, and I have placed a copy of Sir John's announcement in the Library.
	Following the court's decision, I am pleased to say that offers for the extended first round of specialist recruitment will start today. Interviews for the current round should be completed by the end of this month and all initial offers for hospital specialties will be made locally by the postgraduate deaneries between now and 7 June.
	Successful candidates might receive more than one offer. They will be able to wait until all their offers are received, allowing them to consider their options before making a decision on which to accept. Initial offers must be accepted or declined before midnight on 10 June. Following that deadline, training places that have been declined will be re-offered to the next highest-ranked appointable candidates. Those additional offers will be made from Monday 11 June until Wednesday 20 June.
	At its meeting on 9 May, the review group agreed a set of principles upon which the continued recruitment of specialist medical trainees this year would be based. These principles are fully supported by the deaneries, NHS employers—and, of course, the Department of Health—and are set out in a letter of 22 May that was sent to all applicants, a copy of which I have also placed in the Library. That further recruitment round will be locally planned and managed.
	Although there will not be a national allocation and matching system for appointments, MTAS will continue to be used by deaneries for administration and monitoring. As in the extended round 1, applicants will be provided with information on the competition ratios for each post to assist them in deciding where to apply. The number of posts available in the further recruitment round will, of course, depend upon the outcome of round 1, but will be substantial.
	In particular, the Douglas review group has stressed that there are fewer ST3 posts available at the moment than should be expected for the number of doctors well advanced in their specialist training. Following the review group's recommendations and with its full agreement, we will be creating 200 additional run-through training programmes for those doctors who have already invested several years in training for their chosen specialty. For example, it is proposed that 20 new posts will be added to the 100 already available this year in cardiology, 19 new posts will be added to the 30 already available in neurology, and so on. We are in discussion with the review group and the appropriate royal colleges to finalise the details, which will take into account the needs of the NHS, as well as junior doctors.
	I have already told the House that we will support junior doctors during this further appointment process, including especially those whose current contracts come to an end within it. We are working with strategic health authorities to ensure that all applicants currently in NHS employment will continue to have employment while they progress through the next round. In addition to the extra run-through programmes that I have announced, we have also accepted the recommendation of the review group to create further additional training opportunities for those junior doctors who are appointable to specialist training, but for whom training opportunities may not otherwise be available this year. For those who have successfully completed the MMC foundation training programme and who demonstrate their ability to progress, there will be new training programmes through one-year fixed term appointments. We are asking PMETB to expedite the approval of both the extra fixed-term and run-through programmes. There will also be a range of sponsored training programmes available to enable doctors either to get an additional year's experience in their chosen specialty or to choose to gain experience in a different specialty, thus giving them all a better chance to apply and secure a training programme next year.
	The strategic health authorities will manage the process and work with trusts, deaneries and royal colleges to determine the types of opportunities that they will make available. All those posts will be based on local service requirements and future work force planning needs. Funding to support those training opportunities will come from the Department and SHAs.
	At the end of the further recruitment process, there will remain a number of applicants who have been unable to demonstrate this year that they are suitable for the specialist training programmes. Many will remain in their current service posts while others will be able to apply for the non-training service posts vacated by those moving into training posts. SHAs and trusts will work together to match doctors to posts across each region.
	I believe we now have the right way forward both to give junior doctors the support and opportunities they need, and to ensure that the NHS has the right doctors in place to continue providing excellent care to patients. The result is that there will be more junior doctors in specialty and GP training than ever before. I am extremely grateful to Professor Douglas, the medical royal colleges, the BMA and other members of the review group for their help and support in resolving this difficult situation.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement and for coming to make a further statement on those matters. The Secretary of State said that she welcomed the High Court judgment and acknowledged the criticisms made by Mr. Justice Goldring. At the very least, she might have had the good grace to accept them. He said, for example, that
	"the fact the claimant"—
	Legal Remedy UK—
	"has failed in what was accepted to be an unprecedented application so far as the law is concerned does not mean that many junior doctors do not have an entirely justifiable sense of grievance."
	They certainly do. He continued:
	"The premature introduction of MTAS has had disastrous consequences. It was a flawed system".
	He also says that
	"the shortlisting process was flawed. The application form was unreliable as a measure of ability...the algorithm needed to govern the allocation process under MTAS did not work".
	Not least as a result of the judgment, the Secretary of State has had to accept many of the criticisms that the Opposition have made over the past two months. She will also have to accept—not least because Professor Douglas and his review group have recommended them—some of the remedies that we called for. For example, in the statement she essentially said that additional training posts would be available. She will recall that that is precisely what I called for from the Dispatch Box on 19 March. The Secretary of State and her colleagues disparaged that call. Time has been lost and that is a lamentable further failing after the original failings of the MTAS scheme.
	I wish to ask the Secretary of State some further important questions. Can she confirm that it is not her intention to seek costs from Legal Remedy UK? That would be a deplorable act after all that it has gone through. Secondly, she has announced how many additional run-through training posts are to be made, but she will know that what is even more significant is how many temporary training posts are able to be added. How many posts will be in round 2? She says that the number will be substantial. The word "substantial" is often used and Mr. Justice Goldring was right yesterday when he said that—as the Secretary of State said on 13 March—it is very important that a "significant" number of posts are available in round 2. In the Department's evidence to the High Court it was said that there would be unfilled posts from round 1, posts that were held back from round 1, and new posts. Can the Secretary of State tell us how many new posts there will be in round 2 and how many posts have been held back from round 1? I know that she will not be able to tell us how many unfilled posts there will be from round 1, but can she explain why, both in her evidence to the High Court and in the letter to applicants sent out yesterday, it continues to be the Department's view that the offer and re-offer process will enable the units of application—the deaneries—to fill as many training posts as possible? Surely the objective of round 1 is not to fill as many training posts as possible, but—as she said on 13 March—to fill training posts wherever the interviewers are satisfied that they have an eminently qualified candidate; otherwise, round 2 will not have as many posts as it should.
	Back in late April, the Department appeared to believe that there were between 500 and 1,300 foundation programme graduates who were at risk of not attracting either specialist training one posts or fixed-term specialist training posts. Do I gather from the Secretary of State's statement that it is now her intention to ensure that every suitably qualified foundation programme graduate, which I hope is virtually all of them, will find a training post, and that the numbers will be brought down virtually to zero?
	Can the Secretary of State tell us what she might further do to help hospitals with their problems at the beginning of August? It is virtually impossible for many hospitals to advertise and attract candidates for service posts starting on 1 August in circumstances in which so many junior doctors have no idea whether they will get training posts. Round 2 will extend beyond August, perhaps all the way to November. It is therefore vital that as many as possible of those posts be converted to training posts, even if they are temporary training posts or, as the letter to applicants says, a process will follow in which PMETB tries to progress the posts into ones that it recognises for training purposes. What will the Secretary of State do to try to help trusts to fill posts in circumstances that are becoming increasingly difficult?
	How can all this be achieved in circumstances in which, in several regions, the MPET budgets, which were cut last year, also face cuts this year? We know from SHA board papers that £136 million will be cut from MPET budgets. Surely that was always intended to be a one-year cut in the education and training budget. If it carries on, it will prejudice the delivery of all of those objectives.
	We have arrived at the point at which the Secretary of State comes to the House to report what Professor Douglas tells her should happen this year and, for the future, what Professor Sir John Tooke and his review tell her will happen. To all intents and purposes, the Secretary of State is now merely a cipher for the profession. Frankly speaking, that is a better solution than has been the case in the past, because the Secretary of State has so completely failed. If she would only admit that, as Mr. Justice Goldring said yesterday, the process has been a disaster, that would serve her rather better.

Patricia Hewitt: I have learned never to be surprised by the hon. Gentleman's inability to welcome developments—in this case a very good package of support for junior doctors. Of course, it would have been much better if it had been in place from the beginning, but it gives junior doctors better support than the NHS has provided in the past.
	On the issue of costs for yesterday's judicial review, of course I will consider that with sympathy.  [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to hear my answers to the specific points that he raised. Public funds are involved, and I am not going to make a snap decision.
	The hon. Gentleman asked how many round 2 posts there will be. He also acknowledged that we do not yet know how many posts will be filled in round 1, so the final total number of posts available in round 2 will depend on how many are filled by well qualified candidates in round 1, following the decisions of the deaneries and the interview panels. However, the round 2 posts will also include the 200 new run-through posts for the more senior junior doctors recommended by the review group and specifically welcomed by Professor Douglas.
	On the issue of those graduating from the two-year foundation programme, any graduate from that programme who is ready to progress with their training will certainly have a training opportunity.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what will happen in August. There are a number of options for hospitals to ensure that they have the right number of doctors continuing in post to support the care of patients. The detailed plans are being worked on by the hospital trusts with the support of the strategic health authorities.
	On MPET, I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is more than £8 billion of additional growth money for the NHS this year, some of which is going into the training budgets that are now the responsibility of the NHS within each region. It is for the strategic health authority in each region to manage that budget, taking into account the fact that in many regions, including my own, the east midlands, there have not been particular difficulties with the recruitment round this year. There have been substantial difficulties in some parts of the country, but the picture is not uniform, so the management of the budget and the answers to any problems are much better worked out at regional and local level.

David Taylor: The Secretary of State told the House a moment or two ago that she wanted to support through the further appointment process those junior doctors who were most vulnerable—those whose current contracts come to an end during that process. How many such people are there?
	The Secretary of State said that a number of applicants will have been unable to demonstrate that they are suitable for this year's programme, and they will remain in current service posts. Does she fear that if the MTAS merry-go-round cranks up again in 2008, some of the people in those service posts will act as a logjam, blocking next year's would-be trainee consultants?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises two important points. On the first issue, of supporting junior doctors who continue to apply through the second recruitment round, we will, as I have said, ensure that those who are currently in NHS employment and whose contracts come to an end will be able to continue in NHS employment.
	On the second issue, of those who at the end of this year's process have been unable to demonstrate that they are suitable for specialist or GP training posts, it is important to remember that through the service posts—the non-training posts—doctors continue to make an invaluable contribution to the NHS. Securing a training programme that may lead to employment either as a consultant or a GP is not the only way for a doctor to have a valuable and fulfilling career in the NHS, and we welcome the contribution of those doctors in the service posts as well as those who proceed through their training to become consultants and GPs.

Norman Lamb: I, too, am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. I am sure that she acknowledges that yesterday was something of a hollow victory and I trust that she is not feeling triumphant about the outcome of the case, particularly in light of the judge's criticisms of what has happened to date. I shall have another go: the right hon. Lady said in her statement that she acknowledges the criticisms, but does she accept them?
	The Secretary of State said that she would consider further the question of costs, and I am grateful for that. Will she give a time scale for that? Obviously, junior doctors are concerned that they may face a substantial bill. When are they likely to know? I urge her not to pursue costs against them.
	Today, I have written to the National Audit Office to ask it to investigate the cost-effectiveness of MTAS and the costs incurred in the Remedy programme. Does the right hon. Lady support that proposal? It seems to me to be entirely appropriate. Does she agree with the suggestion that Professor Tooke's review group should work closely with the NAO? Will she ensure that Professor Tooke's review and all the relevant documents are published?
	The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there appears to be a breach of contract on the part of the contractors. Is she considering legal action against them and termination of the contract? She said that MTAS will continue to be used for monitoring and administration. Will she explain what that means and how it will continue to be used by the deaneries?
	The judge referred to the fact that there were possible individual employment law claims. What assessment has been made of the risks of that and how we can ensure that there are not claims? Obviously, we want to try to avoid unfairness as far as possible.
	Time will be tight between offers being made and accepted. What practical help is being given to applicants and deaneries to ensure that they can handle the potentially huge number of inquiries during that tight time scale? Can the Secretary of State give any update on the time scale for round 2? We have heard that it could drag on until November. Does she expect that to happen?
	The right hon. Lady referred to the 200 additional run-through training posts. Is that it, or could there be more? She did not give a number for the one-year fixed-term specialist training appointments. Can she give any indication of the likely number of those additional appointments? Will she also reflect on the fact that this may simply be postponing the problem? If there are not sufficient consultant posts at the end of the process, will we not have a crisis further down the track? What is the latest assessment of how many junior doctors will be unemployed this summer? There has been a clear acknowledgement that there could be some.
	This experience has been a horror for junior doctors, and I am sure that the Secretary of State has not particularly enjoyed it either, but it is important that everyone now works together to achieve the best possible outcome. Is she willing to meet Remedy UK to try to start building bridges, get it on board and find a unified way forward?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions; let me deal with them all in turn. I have always accepted that the implementation of this move to the new specialty training system has been inadequate in many respects and has caused needless distress and anxiety to junior doctors, for which I have apologised on a number of occasions.
	I will make a decision on costs as quickly as possible, but, as I said, public funds are involved and I need to consult on that issue before making a decision.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about a possible NAO review of MTAS. That is a matter for the NAO itself. Sir John Tooke will make his own decisions because he is leading an independent review, but I have placed in the Library a copy of his statement about how he will work.
	What I have also done, as I mentioned to the House on an earlier occasion, is ask the Cabinet Office and the Office of Government Commerce to conduct a separate review of the MTAS procurement process. Once we have that report, we will be able to make further decisions as needed about the contract. I will take a view on that when we see the report, which may include commercially confidential information.
	As for the way in which MTAS will be used, as I said, the postgraduate deaneries want to be able to continue to use MTAS, including for monitoring purposes. For instance, it is important, given many of the criticisms made of the original shortlisting process, that we are able to track the success rate in securing training offers and appointments for those who were shortlisted and interviewed in round 1a, and those who were not shortlisted but were guaranteed an interview in the remainder of the extended round 1. The initial indications—and that is all they are, as we said in our evidence to the court—are that the overall quality of candidates in the first round was extremely high. However, the deaneries will want to track and monitor that through MTAS.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about employment law claims, and he raised, too, the important issue of junior doctors' fears of unemployment. The best way to deal with those fears and avoid employment law claims is to ensure that we make the job offers—as I said, those will start today—enable doctors who receive offers to decide which ones they want to accept, and then ensure that those who progress to round 2 and are in NHS employment continue in such employment. The hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale for round 2. As we have already told applicants—and this is very much at the request of the deaneries and the hospital trusts—that will start in June, immediately after the end of round 1, but it will continue, if necessary, through November, because it will vary in different specialties and different parts of the country.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for the number of additional training opportunities over and above the 200 run-through posts that I have just announced. It will depend on how many junior doctors emerge at the end of the process, having been found fit to progress with specialty training but without a training opportunity this year. There will be as many as are needed for that group, funded in the way that I have already described.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what will happen next year, and whether there will be sufficient consultant posts. We have already seen over the past 12 months an increase of about 3,500 doctors employed in the NHS, so there has been a further increase in the number of doctors in that period. The number of consultant posts will depend on what the service needs to care for patients. There has always been stiff competition for consultant posts, particularly in the most popular specialties, and it is absolutely right that that should continue so that the NHS can appoint the best people to those immensely important leadership posts.
	The hon. Gentleman ended by saying that it is essential that everyone work together to ensure that the solution that has now been put in place is properly implemented. There was a meeting with representatives of Remedy UK before the application for judicial review, and the Department is now seeking an early meeting with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Medical Association and Remedy UK. I am meeting the BMA myself this afternoon.

Laura Moffatt: Now that the dust has settled, does my right hon. Friend agree that the focus should be on ensuring that the original principles of the new system of modernising medical careers can give us all confidence that the very best in the NHS will get the jobs that they deserve? We should bear that very much in mind as we go forward, to make sure that it is a successful scheme which gives the public confidence that there are no shenanigans in the background giving people jobs that they do not deserve—and this is the way to do it.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I entirely agree that we now need to ensure that the principles of modernising medical careers are effectively implemented. Those principles include open, transparent competition for training opportunities with agreed national standards. Thanks to the work done on modernising medical careers, we have a system that will be fair to junior doctors, but that will ensure, too, that the NHS can get the right doctors and the best people in the right jobs to go on giving the best possible care to patients.

Peter Bottomley: May I thank the Secretary of State and the Department for helping the judicial review to be heard without delay? It was held with unprecedented speed, and the Department played a part in that. May I ask her to try to arrange for both the claim and the submissions by director Nicholas Greenfield to be posted on the Department's website or on some other one, so that those with an interest can see the arguments, together with the judgment?
	The Secretary of State spoke about the attention that she will give to the judge's remarks, so I will not go over them now. However, will she give some indication of how many posts are likely to be available in round 2, especially in the less popular specialties and areas of the country? What estimate can be made, either now or in the run-up to 1 August, of how many essential posts in hospitals are unlikely to be filled, and whether there will be a great informal hiring system to try to make sure that patients do not suffer?
	Finally, since last year, Dr. Gordon Caldwell of Worthing and others, including Richard Marks, the London anaesthetist, have tried to engage with the problems, which are now accepted by the Department. People involved in the process, whether they said that it could be improved or that there were dangers, or whether they helped to run it—I pay tribute to them for their diligence and dedication—ought to get together. Will the Minister meet Dr. Gordon Caldwell, perhaps his father, Bob Caldwell, who is rather good at algorithms, and Richard Marks? I am not sure whether John Marks is still alive—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House has enough questions to work on for the time being.

Patricia Hewitt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, as he has taken a very close interest in this matter. I should like to place on record my appreciation of my officials, who worked exceptionally hard to ensure that the evidence was put before the court so that the judicial review hearing could be expedited. I will look specifically at the hon. Gentleman's point about making all the submissions available.
	I have already dealt with the issue of the number of jobs in round 2. There is real confidence among the postgraduate deaneries that, as I said, a substantial number of posts, including those 200 very good new run-through posts, particularly in the most popular specialties, will be available in round 2.
	On the issue of hospital staffing in August—again, we have discussed that on other occasions—hospitals are used to planning for the normal changeover of junior doctor rotation in August. Obviously, they have to step up those plans this year, but they are doing so with the support of the strategic health authorities. We expect hospitals—and the chief executive, David Nicholson has made it clear that he does so, too—to ensure that patients continue to be cared for properly and safely. As part of the process of learning lessons from what has happened and ensuring that the whole system works properly in future, we will engage with as many people as possible and ensure that those lessons are learned. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, if he gives me details of particular individuals who would like to contribute, we can ensure that the review group or officials meet them.

Nigel Evans: We are shortly to have a statement about how the Government want to charge people according to how much rubbish they put out. I suspect that the Department of Health will face a hefty bill, judging by the rubbish that has come from it in recent months. Why has this shambles been allowed to drag on for so long? What time scale has the Secretary of State given herself to look at whether Remedy UK will face a legal bill, and what time scale does she think Sir John Tooke requires to publish his report?

Patricia Hewitt: I have already dealt with most of those points. As for the Tooke review, Sir John said that he will publish an interim report in September that will be subject to widespread consultation, but it will be up to him to decide when he publishes his final report.

Christopher Fraser: A junior doctor in my constituency told me that the chaos of U-turns and compromises announced by the Government has left him facing a brief interview, which, he says, gives him 30 minutes to save his career. Does the Secretary of State accept that that is no reassurance that he and thousands of others have a future in the NHS?

Patricia Hewitt: The interview that was guaranteed to every candidate, including those who had not been shortlisted in the initial round 1, gives everybody the opportunity to be interviewed for their first-preference job, but that is not the end of the matter. Phrases such as "one opportunity to save my career" and "make or break" simply do not reflect reality—

Christopher Fraser: They feel that.

Patricia Hewitt: The point that I want to make to the hon. Gentleman, and through him to his constituent, is that any applicant who does not secure a training post in round 1 will be able to make as many applications as they want for the substantial number of posts that will be made available through round 2. As I have said, we are taking steps to ensure that applicants in NHS employment whose contracts come to an end during round 2 will be able to continue in NHS employment while they try to secure a training opportunity in round 2. I have already dealt with what happens to people at the end of round 2.

Evan Harris: It is right that there should be an increased number of training posts, but they will be run-through posts to nowhere if there is no expansion in the number of consultant posts in order that those who are being trained can be provided with jobs at the end of the process. It is not only service that dictates the number of consultants, but policy—national policy to provide trainers for those extra people, the European working time directive and the consultant-led service. Will the Secretary of State undertake to get a national grip on the increased number of consultant posts needed to provide those policy outcomes and careers for all the junior doctors who are dedicating themselves to training?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but he is in a little danger of turning the situation on its head. The number of consultancy posts depends on the needs of the service, although of course that is in the context of the working time directive, national service frameworks, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, and so on. It also depends on what individual hospitals judge they require and what the specialist royal colleges and associations recommend. All those factors have to be taken into account to ensure that in every part of the country the NHS gives patients the best possible care. That will determine the number of consultant posts and the number of training opportunities and non-training junior doctor posts, which will continue to make a valuable contribution to the NHS. As I said earlier, there will continue to be stiff competition for consultant posts, which is how it should be.

Justine Greening: I am sure that many of the junior doctors in my constituency who contacted me because they are concerned about this whole process will welcome the announcement of additional training posts. Will the Secretary of State clarify where the funding of those training posts will come from? She said that it would come from the Department and SHAs, but will it be from existing budgets or will additional funding be found for those posts? What is her estimate of the total cost of funding those additional training posts?

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for welcoming the announcements that I have made. The funding will come from the existing budgets of SHAs and the Department. I am not making a claim on the reserves. I always find it entertaining when Opposition Members who voted against extra funding for the NHS ask for extra funding for something else. I stress this point to her: because of the difficult decisions we have taken over the past 12 months, the NHS as a whole is not only back in financial balance but will have a surplus in the financial year that has just ended, putting it into a much better position to deal with those extra funding needs. We shall not know what the cost will be until we know the number of applicants who have been assessed as ready to progress to further training but for whom training opportunities are not currently available. What I have indicated is that there will be funding for the number of additional opportunities required for those candidates.

Waste Strategy

David Miliband: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Government's waste strategy for England, which I am publishing today.
	Each year we generate about 100 million tonnes of waste from households, commerce and industry combined. Most of it currently ends up in landfill, where biodegradable waste generates methane, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases, which accounts for about 3 per cent. of UK greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile much valuable energy is used up in making new products that are later disposed of, thereby also contributing to climate change.
	We need, therefore, not only to recycle and reuse waste but to prevent it in the first place. The waste strategy published in 2000 delivered a step change in performance. Twenty-seven per cent. of household waste collected by local authorities in 2005-06 was recycled or composted, compared with 7.5 per cent. 10 years earlier. Recycling of packaging waste doubled to 56 per cent. in the same period. There was a fall of 9 per cent. in waste being landfilled between 2001 and 2005, and household waste is now growing much more slowly than the economy as a whole, at only about 0.5 per cent. per year.
	Despite that progress, England's waste performance still lags far behind much of Europe. Other countries landfill far less, and recycle and recover energy from waste much more. However, all countries face a challenge in reducing the growth of waste; and it is waste reduction that produces the greatest environmental benefits.
	The strategy published today sets out national standards, while increasing local flexibility over how to achieve them. It provides a range of tools for individuals, businesses and local authorities to do the job. Our key objectives set out in the strategy are simple: less waste, more reuse and recycling, more energy from waste, and less landfill. Each part of society can play a part in achieving those objectives.
	We set out three steps in the strategy. The first is for producers and retailers to help prevent waste, and take greater responsibility for ensuring that waste is recycled. We have identified key materials where waste can be reduced or recycled, including paper, plastics, glass, wood, aluminium, textiles and food. To achieve that, we are establishing voluntary agreements with the industries concerned to reduce and recycle waste. For example, there are more than 350 million pieces of unaddressed direct mail every year, so we have agreed with the Direct Marketing Association to develop an opt-out service for mail of that sort and will consider an approach where people get direct mail—addressed or unaddressed—only if they choose to receive it. We will also reduce the environmental impact of carrier bags by 25 per cent. over the next 18 months—equivalent to 3.25 billion fewer bags a year, or the greenhouse gas emissions of 18,000 cars—and work for the end of free, single-use carrier bags.
	The reduction and recycling of packaging is an important symbol of change. The Government will take action in two areas. First, in consultation with industry, we will seek further to minimise the amount of packaging used; for example, by setting optimal packaging standards for certain products, so that producers will be expected to use the lightest weight packaging wherever possible. In addition, I am writing today to Commissioner Dimas urging the European Commission to review the provisions of the EU packaging directive so that member states' authorities can take more effective enforcement action against clear cases of excessive packaging. Secondly, we need further to increase the rate of recycling of waste packaging. Subject to analysis, the Government will propose higher recycling targets for the period beyond 2008 and I have also written to the commissioner about that.
	The second step to achieving the objectives is investment in infrastructure. Our aim is to ensure investment in facilities that collect sort, reprocess and treat waste by local authorities, businesses and the third sector. Alongside kerbside recycling, we want to stimulate the provision of much better recycling facilities in places of public access, so I am delighted that many operators of airports and railway stations, as well as the royal parks, have signalled their support for a drive to make recycling easier in places under their management. We will also establish a "zero waste places" initiative to develop innovative and exemplary waste practice. Through the private finance initiative, enhanced capital allowances and the proposed banding system for renewable obligation certificates, we intend to support a variety of energy recovery technologies.
	We expect energy from waste to account for about 5 per cent. of municipal waste by 2020, compared with 10 per cent. today. That includes anaerobic digestion, which creates energy from food and other natural waste. According to the early evidence, the separate collection of household food waste on a weekly basis results in higher levels of recovery; up to 20 local trials on best practice in that respect are being undertaken.
	The third sector—the voluntary sector—has a significant role to play in waste management and in achieving social and environmental objectives. The Waste and Resources Action Programme will therefore be developing a new programme to build further capacity in third sector organisations to enable them to maximise their contribution.
	The third step is to use incentives and regulation to divert waste from landfill and encourage recycling. In his Budget in March this year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a substantially higher and faster rate of increase for the landfill tax escalator, which is to rise by £8 a tonne per year until at least 2010-11. Partly as a result, we now expect to see levels of commercial and industrial waste falling by 20 per cent. by 2010, compared with 2004. Also, we are considering with the construction industry a target to halve the amount of construction waste going to landfill by 2012. A number of European countries have imposed landfill bans on particular types of waste. Subject to additional analysis, we intend to consult on further restrictions on the landfilling of biodegradable waste or of recyclable materials.
	This strategy empowers local authorities to make the right decisions for local circumstances in consultation with their local population. However, they are currently banned from providing financial incentives for waste reduction and recycling, even though elsewhere in Europe this has been an important contributory factor to higher recycling rates. We do not believe that a new tax-raising power for local authorities is the right way forward. However, in response to calls from the Local Government Association, I am launching today a public consultation on proposals to allow revenue-neutral financial incentive schemes to reduce and recycle waste.
	Local authorities will be able to decide whether to develop schemes that reward in cash people who reduce waste and recycle at the expense of those who do not. Good recycling facilities need to be the foundation of such schemes; and any authority introducing a scheme will have to provide a good kerbside recycling service, as well as taking steps to tackle fly-tipping and avoid unfair impacts on disadvantaged groups. In the end it is for voters at local elections to pass judgment on such schemes, as against the alternatives.
	We are confident enough of the measures that we are putting forward to set new and higher national targets for recycling, composting and recovery of household and municipal waste. We intend to achieve at least a 50 per cent. average household recycling rate by 2020, as compared to 27 per cent. in 2005-06. Subject to further analysis we will be proposing higher recycling targets for packaging for the period beyond 2008. Government must play their part: the central Government estate has targets to reduce waste by 25 per cent. and recycle 75 per cent. of waste by 2020.
	We expect the combined impact of our policies to be a reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions from waste management of at least 9.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2020 compared to 2006. This is equivalent to taking 3 million cars off the road for a whole year. These savings are before allowing for the additional carbon benefits from waste prevention. Action on waste can make an important contribution to tackling climate change and other environmental objectives. More and more people are concerned about living in a throwaway culture. This strategy gives people the tools to make a difference. It makes environmental sense and it makes economic sense. I commend it to the House.

Peter Ainsworth: It is a little ironic that a Government who have become a byword for wasting time and money have made such a hash of waste policy. Under Labour, as the Secretary of State almost acknowledged, Britain has become the dirty man of Europe. Yes, recycling rates have increased, but we are still faced with a growing pile of rubbish, and some three quarters of household waste is still dumped in landfill sites where it contributes to climate change. In France the corresponding figure is 38 per cent. and in Germany it is just 20 per cent. Why cannot we do better?
	The Secretary of State says that household waste is growing at just a half a per cent. a year, but that represents less than 10 per cent. of the overall problem. Overall waste is increasing by 3 per cent. a year. Much of the pressure to improve our performance comes from the European Union. The Waste Strategy 2000 promised that in future the Government would meet the requirements of EU legislation "fully and quickly". Shortly afterwards we had the fiasco of fridge mountains. Since then we have had delays and confusion over the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive and the end of life vehicle directive. The next one, I bet, will be a crisis over the new requirements to recycle batteries. Watch this space.
	The huge media coverage that the issue of waste has attracted reflects real public concern. People know that there is a problem and they want the Government and local councils to help them solve it. I fear that there will be at best widespread disappointment at the Secretary of State's statement today, and at worst a degree of alarm. Where the public, councils and industry were looking for and expecting at last some certainty, they will find vagueness and indecision.
	The Secretary of State says that he will "consider an approach" to cutting junk mail. I wonder how that differs from the Waste Strategy 2000 pledge to
	"develop an initiative on junk mail"?
	He suggests increasing packaging recycling rates, but only "Subject to analysis". After a year of reviewing the position, how much more analysis do we need? He says that he is "considering with the construction industry a target" to reduce waste sent to landfill. How much more consideration can be justified?
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman announced a "public consultation" on waste charging. What exactly does he mean by allowing councils to reward in cash people who reduce waste and recycle at the expense of those who do not? I think he means fining people. I am not in favour of fining people; I am in favour of rewarding people who do the right thing. The Government will not succeed by bullying, whether bullying local councils by imposing new burdens without providing the means to pay for them, bullying households with threats of fines, or bullying communities by handing decisions over the siting of new waste incinerators to an unelected national quango.
	The Secretary of State says that he expects energy from waste to account for 25 per cent. of municipal waste by 2020. Can he say what proportion of energy from waste he expects to come from anaerobic digestion, and what proportion from mass burn incineration? Does he agree that in a properly structured waste hierarchy incineration should be a last resort, and that it should always, wherever possible, go hand in hand with high levels of energy and heat recovery? Why is he not taking the opportunity to set standards to ensure that that happens?
	The Secretary of State has been tentative where he should have been decisive. He wants a voluntary arrangement with the industry to reduce hugely unpopular and unnecessary packaging, but a system of fines for households struggling to cope with waste packaging that they did not want in the first place. Where are the measures to tackle fly-tipping? Where are the incentives to help people do the right thing? Instead of a clear, straightforward strategy to deal with the rising tide of waste in this country, we have been offered yet more consultations—more dither. The Secretary of State has laboured and brought forth a mouse, or possibly, as some newspapers would have it, no doubt in the light of the concern about fortnightly collections, a rat.

David Miliband: That was an extraordinary performance. If only the hon. Gentleman could have seen the faces of those on the Back Benches behind him as he was giving that performance, he might have reconsidered.
	I know that it is customary to send copies of a statement to the Opposition parties, and of course I did that in the time-honoured fashion. One would think that if I sent the hon. Gentleman a copy, he would be able to read out what I had actually said. From what he said about junk mail, I can only conclude that he had not read what I said. For his benefit, let me say it again. He claimed that we had said that we were considering further action on direct mail. He obviously neither read nor was listening to what I said five minutes ago. This is what I said: "For example, there are over 350 million pieces of unaddressed direct mail every year so we have agreed"—not considered to agree—"we have agreed with the Direct Marketing Association to develop an opt-out service for mail of that sort". That is an agreement.

Christopher Huhne: It already exists.

David Miliband: No, it exists only for addressed mail. Two thirds of direct mail is unaddressed. That is why I gave the figure of 350 million pieces of unaddressed mail. Two thirds of the total direct mail does not have an opt-out service. That is a new agreement.
	The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) claimed that this country was the dirty man of Europe, with 27 per cent. household recycling. We inherited a rate of 7 per cent. from the Conservatives. The quadrupling of household recycling in the UK in the past 10 years is the fastest improvement of any European country.
	The hon. Gentleman said something extraordinary. He said that recovering energy from waste should be a last resort in the waste hierarchy. That is an incredible thing for him to say, and it is important that the House understands the implications of what he has said. He is right to say that there is a waste hierarchy, and prevention is the best option. However, the last resort is landfill, because landfill produces greenhouse gases that are so dangerous in a world of climate change. For him to say that energy from waste is a last resort demonstrates that he does not understand the issues.
	This is the cheek of the hon. Gentleman—he complained that there is nothing on fly-tipping. That is from the party that voted against the provisions on fly-tipping in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. We do not need to legislate on fly-tipping, because we did it two years ago, when the hon. Gentleman voted against the provision.
	On waste charging, the hon. Gentleman said—this is a very important moment in politics—that parties on both sides of this House say that they believe in devolution, local empowerment and local authorities being able to make their own decisions about what is right in their areas. On the Labour Benches, we not only say that, but do it. That is why I have said today that it is right for local authorities to have the power, if they so choose, to introduce a scheme that does not raise local taxes but rewards those who do the right thing. The hon. Gentleman has come out against that principle today. This is an important day to see the difference between rhetoric and reality on the Conservative Front Bench. On this side of the House, we are proud to say that accountability should come through local voters, and it is for local voters to pass judgment whether they like the schemes that local authorities choose to introduce or not.
	The hon. Gentleman has referred to bullying. I can conclude only that there has been some bullying on the Conservative Front Bench. I have here a press release issued yesterday by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who speaks on local authority issues for the Conservative party.

Christopher Huhne: Not today.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman has chosen not to be here today. He preferred to get his press release out, perhaps to pre-empt the statement by the hon. Member for East Surrey, who said that there has been bullying. Under the headline "Join the winning team", which must be ironic, the Conservative party has denounced the decisions made by 68 councils on bins. I am prepared to wager now that the majority of those councils are Conservative councils. It is significant that the Conservative party has refused to disclose the names of those 68 councils, but when we know the names, I will defend their right to make decisions that they believe are in the interests of local people.
	The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar has warned that new stealth taxes are being proposed, but he is wrong, because today's statement includes no new tax-raising powers. Far from the prediction that families would be quivering in fear as a result of the changes, we have the Opposition spokesman quivering in fear of other Conservative Front Benchers, while people in the country can look forward to the day when they can make decisions for themselves.

Alan Whitehead: Contrary to what we have heard today in certain quarters, I warmly welcome the White Paper. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the ends and means issue in relation to climate change and the carbon content of waste, because one should have an eye on the means as well as the ends when supporting or not supporting that particular White Paper? What provisions has he made in that context specifically to enhance the effective use of the carbon value of biomass waste through waste management protocols and arrangements for co-firing—not incineration—where suitable residues are available? In that context, does he agree that there is the remaining problem of when waste is not waste and becomes a resource for further use? Has he made provisions and considerations in the White Paper to resolve that particular problem?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend is an acknowledged expert in this area. He knows that we need to see today's announcement in the context of yesterday's significant announcements about renewable obligation certificates and the higher valuation given to anaerobic digestion, which is known as biomass. It is only in the past 12 months, since I entered this job, that I realised that there is an argument about when waste is waste, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will develop clear protocols to address the definitional problems. I know that he has raised anaerobic digestion before, and the Environment Agency is proceeding with due speed to get that definition done, so we can make progress.

Christopher Huhne: The Secretary of State is right to point out the considerable improvement under this Government, although he has perhaps underestimated the extent to which we still have to catch up, given the state in which the recycling industry and waste collection were left by the previous Conservative Administration. Britain is still the dirtiest rich country in the European Union. Every British person throws away 0.5 tonnes of waste each year, which is 15 per cent. more than 10 years ago when this Government were first elected.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that on the internationally comparable figures we still have the third worst recycling record of all the old EU members? Shamefully, only Greece and Portugal have worse records. The Netherlands and Germany recycle three times as much as we do on the latest figures, and even if the Government were to meet the target that they set in the documents issued today, we would still be recycling substantially less than either Germany or the Netherlands. The statement says: "We intend to achieve at least a 50 per cent. average household recycling rate by 2020". The current rate in Germany is 58 per cent. The Government need to be far more ambitious. Will they commit to achieving the best standards in the EU within 10 years, instead of achieving the worst?
	We need to work on every aspect of the problem. Will the Secretary of State help to curb excess packaging by introducing a right to return at retailers? Will the Government recognise that trading standards officers are under-resourced to prosecute users of unnecessary packaging? And will they ensure that a central agency can also take on the task? It is no use just buck-passing to discussions with Commissioner Dimas, as the Secretary of State has attempted to do today.
	Will the Government argue for an EU-wide colour coding scheme for recyclables, so that householders know whether their council collects such material, which will put further pressure on councils to expand recycling? Will they encourage weekly collections of food waste, which is set to provide 17 per cent. of Germany's electricity by 2020? Will they boost reuse schemes for bottles and other products, perhaps even with a German-style "help yourself day", in which people leave things outside their houses that they want to give away? Will they trial a plastic bag tax, as in the Republic of Ireland, to encourage the provision of reusable bags?
	We agree that local councils need to have the freedom to tailor waste collection to the needs of their areas, including the ability to give discounts for good recycling. That is a welcome enabling power that will encourage experimentation. However, will the Government recognise that there should be clear incentives on all authorities to recycle more by passing on the cost of the landfill tax and the current limits on landfill, which is not currently the case in two-tier authorities? When I have raised that point in the House, Ministers have pooh-poohed it, but 17 per cent. of the English population, which is 8.4 million people, live in two-tier authority areas. A district authority responsible for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will finish with one more question.

Christopher Huhne: What steps will Ministers take to align the incentives on districts and councils?

David Miliband: I shall try to be brief and to follow your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Anyone listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman would realise that he supports our announcement today, and I thank him for that. I agree with him that we must do much better. We have the third worst record on landfill as opposed to the third worst record on recycling, but his basic point is a good one. It is worth pointing out in that context that sometimes people think that if one obtains more energy from waste, one is bound to have less recycling. The countries with the least landfill in Europe also have higher levels than us of both energy produced from waste and recycling. We must—excuse me for saying this—dig ourselves out of the hole left by the Conservative party on recycling. I certainly do not underestimate the catching up that we have to do.
	The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the lack of prosecutions in respect of packaging; he mentioned trading standards officers. I am happy to correspond with him further about that. He rather pooh-poohed the idea that it was sensible to involve the European Commission. In fact, all our evidence is that the vague wording of the packaging directive is a significant hindrance to effective prosecution. That is the reason for engaging with the rest of the European Union, which is a sensible approach.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about a plastic bag tax. We should remember that all disposable bags are important in terms of their environmental impact: the carbon content of paper bags is often higher than that of plastic bags. I hope that that was shorthand on his part.
	On two-tier areas, I agree that there are significant issues in 34 counties of England where district councils collect and county councils dispose. That is why we have made provision in the Local Government Bill for joint waste authorities. Although the hon. Gentleman is not smiling about that, Members behind him are nodding vigorously.

Bob Russell: indicated assent.

David Miliband: Thank you very much.
	The joint waste authority arrangement, which will only be entered into unanimously by local decision, is the right way to get the sort of alignment that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) is talking about.

Elliot Morley: I warmly welcome the waste strategy. I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my concern that my local council, North Lincolnshire, received the worst rating in the country in terms of satisfaction with its waste collection service. He is right that people pass judgment on their local authorities. I am sure that he would want to join me in welcoming the new Labour administration elected this May, which has pledged to consult local people about improving waste collection, options and costs. It is extraordinary that the official Opposition seem to be against consultation and engaging people in this debate.
	I have two quick points. First, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of phasing out plastics that cannot be recycled? Secondly, anaerobic digestion is a very welcome development. Farm facilities such as pig units would like to invest in such facilities and could incorporate waste food. Will there be measures to support such investment?

David Miliband: I am sure that the whole House recognises that my right hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority on this subject. The short answer is that I am happy to consider his proposals on plastics. On anaerobic digestion, there are significant capital and other allowances. The renewables obligation announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gives a clear financial boost to anyone thinking about investing in anaerobic digestion. There are 3,000 such facilities in Germany but fewer than 100 in the UK. I am determined to help British farmers to exploit that big opportunity.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask for crisp questions and crisp answers?

Michael Jack: Fylde borough council recycles at 40 per cent.—a tremendous achievement. It would like to do better but wonders where the additional resources will come from, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State's strategy acknowledges the rising cost to local authorities of improving their performance and the fact that his Department's Gershon savings are predicated on local authorities reducing their expenditure. How does the strategy address that?
	On commercial waste, the authority would like to offer recycling for that waste stream but is inhibited by the county council and cannot charge for it. What does the strategy say about overcoming that problem?

David Miliband: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman makes two good points. On the second, he is right to say that the Berlin wall that seems to exist between commercial waste and municipal waste does not make sense. I am not suggesting that he has not gone through the whole document yet, but I assure him that it contains clear measures to make it easier for local authorities and commercial operators or premises to be brought together and for local authorities to play a bigger role in that respect.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the strategy does not set out the Department's spending patterns over the next three years—that will be done in the spending review in the autumn in order to take forward our proposals.

Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend probably knows that I have been involved in this matter for a long time in connection with an all-party group that knows a lot about it. I assure him that there will be much more all-party support for the measures announced today than he might think given what has been said so far. Does he agree that it is a question of getting the balance right between recycling, generating energy from waste and all the other ways that we can treat waste? The document is right about that. If we get the balance right, do not get carried away by fashions and fads—as with packaging, for example—and carry on with good national leadership, stressing innovation and getting local determination, we will win this battle.

David Miliband: I am surrounded by authorities on this matter from all parts of the House. I agree that it is a matter of balance, not of fads, and that comes through in the document. I would point out to the House the consensus that has emerged across local government, environmental groups and the business community. As ever, they do not say that the strategy is the best thing since sliced bread and award 10 marks out of 10 to the Government, but there is unanimity among them that it represents a significant step forward. My hon. Friend is an important part of that consensus; it is a pity that Opposition Front Benchers have not chosen to join it.

David Curry: A key part of the document is the ability to apply incentives and levies on those who do not recycle. Fiscal neutrality at the level of every local authority will be quite a big ask in the case of some local authorities; it will depend very much on the sociology of their areas. How does the Secretary of State envisage local people deciding whether they want to apply the scheme? Will there be a local referendum? If the vehicle for payment, incentives and fines is the council tax, how will that affect people on benefits, particularly council tax benefit? If he wishes to visit Chateau Curry at any time he will see a very good state-of-the-art compost heap.

David Miliband: I look forward to seeing the chateau and the moat as well as the compost heap.
	There is a detailed consultation on the choice that we are giving to local authorities. Because we want to give them choice, we are not prescribing the way in which they consult, but elections are obviously the ultimate form of consultation. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is an important decision that a local authority would want to enter into only after careful thought, but we think it right to give them the ability to do so. He will see from the details that we do not propose a rebate scheme through the council tax system. We have kept the scheme separate from council tax. I am told by those who know more than I do that council tax is complicated enough as it is, so it will sit in parallel and not add to the complexity.

Sally Keeble: I welcome the statement but remind my right hon. Friend that the waste collection service is probably the single most important universal service that most households get and pay for through their council tax, and Labour Members know to our cost that it is a politically sensitive one. What guidance will he provide to local authorities to ensure that in their consultations they do not just listen to what the majority say but provide a flexible service? My local authority makes fortnightly collections, which, while they work for some people, make life a complete nightmare for many others.  [ Interruption . ]

David Miliband: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) pointed out, Conservative authorities have felt the pain of voters' anger.
	Surely my hon. Friend and I agree that this is a matter of local choice and implementation. It would be wrong for me to say that I believe in devolution and then tell every local authority—urban, rural or suburban—exactly how they should do their waste collection. It must be right for authorities to choose how to do it and then gain the plaudits or suffer the consequences. We have presented new evidence today about food waste and the benefits that can come from collecting that separately. Different parts of the country do this in different ways. Alternate weekly collection has caused difficulties in some areas but has not given rise to the same concerns in others. That is local democracy and local politics, and it is important that we should defend that.

Andrew Robathan: Besides fly-tipping, the other great scourge of the countryside is litter. The Secretary of State will know that Bill Bryson, the newly appointed president of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, and Jeremy Paxman have great concerns about this, but so have all our constituents. We all accept that it is partly a matter of education, but is there anything in the strategy that will assist local authorities not only to pick up litter but to prevent it?

David Miliband: In the gentlest possible way, I remind the hon. Gentleman that we debated the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 in the House at great length. It gave local authorities a wide range of powers, and no one has subsequently claimed that we need new or additional powers. The simple answer is therefore that today's announcement proposes no addition to the 2005 Act.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of litter. I ran into, and have written to, Bill Bryson, and I look forward to meeting him to discuss his new role in the CPRE. Jeremy Paxman's figures are, as I think that he himself would admit, anecdotal. The independent survey evidence suggests that the amount of litter is reducing. I do not minimise the significance of litter for people, the image that it gives of the country or the spirit that it fosters. The hon. Gentleman used the right word when he said that "culture" is important, as well as laws. I thoroughly agree with him that we must get the culture right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Keith Vaz. I beg your pardon—I call David Taylor.

David Taylor: This is the first time that I have been mistaken for my near colleague, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am flattered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) clearly decided not to continue standing to be called.

David Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserves congratulations from hon. Members of all parties on the White Paper. I am sure that those who serve on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be impressed by the rapidity with which he has got to grips with his brief on such an important subject.
	For revenue-neutral incentives to reduce or recycle waste, there will be a need for some form of technology to ensure efficiency. Computer chips in bins will be part of that. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the story that some of the more excitable tabloids are enthusiastically peddling—that the chips will track every last baked bean can, gin bottle and  Focus leaflet that are put into bins—is way off the mark, and that they will contain only an address and possibly some sort of weight indicator?

David Miliband: The short answer to my hon. Friend is yes. He is right that the idea that cameras are buried in the chips to spy on beans—

Nigel Evans: And  Focus leaflets.

David Miliband: I am not sure whether those are biodegradable, or how much hot air they contain.

Tom Levitt: They are rubbish before they start.

David Miliband: As my hon. Friend says, they are rubbish even before they go through the letter box. We do not need a definition of waste to know where to put our  Focus leaflets.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) has raised a serious point. Although the document makes it clear that some local authorities may want to use the modern technology, that is not a requirement to introduce a financial incentive scheme. Simple bin-based or sack-based schemes are perfectly usable. The technological solution is a separate issue and not a requirement of the financial incentive schemes. I am sure that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will want to consider different methods of applying the schemes in due course. However, it is right that we do not prescribe from the centre one way of organising the financial incentives. Local authorities should get the gain and take the blame.

David Heath: May I point out that at least  Focus leaflets, unlike some others, are non-toxic?
	I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about making it easier for local authorities to deal with small-scale commercial waste; that is long overdue. In many rural areas such as mine, fly-tipping is a genuine and growing problem, not only for people who enjoy the countryside but for landowners who end up with a bill. The White Paper makes some suggestions about better prevention, detection and enforcement action, and making existing legislation more usable and effective. What ideas has the right hon. Gentleman to prevent fly-tipping at source?

David Miliband: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the content and tone of his remarks. Prosecutions for fly-tipping have doubled. That could mean either that there is much more fly-tipping or that the authorities are getting better at prosecutions. I agree that the courts have an important role to play in taking fly-tipping seriously. Few things disfigure an area—urban or rural—more than fly-tipping. We need to try to work with local authorities, and give them the right range of powers and the support from the centre from all parts of Government. We have set out some ideas in the document, about which I would be happy to correspond or talk to the hon. Gentleman further. Fly-tipping is a scourge that penalises the vast majority for the benefit of a tiny minority. That is why we believed that it was right to raise that subject as a foundation of waste policy in every local authority in the country.

Tom Levitt: Will my right hon. Friend assure hon. Members that he will ensure that there are no unnecessary regulatory barriers to the use of waste as a form of energy locally? Accepted technologies now include using tipped car tyres and fuel substitution using innovative fuels in the cement industry. Will local, community-based combined heat and power programmes have their regulatory burden minimised?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because he links policy on waste, planning and housing, especially new housing. I agree with everything that he said. We are determined to ensure that the sort of regulatory barriers that got in the way in the past no longer exist.

Philip Hollobone: I am proud to be a member of Kettering borough council, which has increased its recycling rate from 4 per cent. in 2003 to 46 per cent., and climbing, now. There are two specific problems in Kettering. One is maggots and the other is fruit and vegetable peelings. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the DEFRA guidelines are on preventing outbreaks of maggots, with alternate weekly collections in hot summer weather? Will he also confirm that the DEFRA guidelines on fruit and vegetable peelings are that even from uncooked fruit and vegetables, the waste now has to go into the non-recycling bin?

David Miliband: I do not recognise the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Our guidance on food waste is common sense: you tie up the bags and make sure they are in bins. I am happy to send him the rather more extensive and formal version, which may not use such blunt language. However, common sense goes a long way—in Kettering as well as anywhere else.
	Given my comments on the importance of devolution, it would probably be wrong to claim credit on behalf of central Government for the astonishing improvement in Kettering borough council's performance —but I cannot help but reflect on the help that may have been given in the past few years.

Brian Jenkins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments that local authorities will be responsible for the way in which they collect waste—weekly, bi-weekly or even daily. Will he assure the House that no financial penalties will be imposed on any local authorities when they determine the way in which they should collect waste, as long as they meet their targets? Does he recognise that the route that he is taking, with individual penalties and rewards, may lead to perverse incentives? Would not it be better to reward or penalise the local authorities, and give them bonuses, when they exceed their targets?

David Miliband: We are absolutely clear that there is no question of prescribing specific forms of waste collection or disposal by local authorities. Instead, we prescribe the outcomes that we seek, in diversion from landfill. The landfill allowance trading system contains precisely the sort of reward that my hon. Friend mentions. It rewards the authorities that do best at diverting from landfill, as he describes. I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend previously, and it must be right for central Government to set the national objectives, give local government all the relevant tools to fulfil them, and ensure that we have a financial system that rewards them for doing so. That is what we have put in place.

Matthew Taylor: Waste giant SITA is about to put in a large planning application for a giant incinerator in mid-Cornwall. It breaches Government planning guidance on the proximity principle for dealing with waste and assumes that our country will never match the best in Europe for waste recycling and minimisation. Does the Secretary of State agree that, given that he believes that today's announcement will greatly increase recycling and reduce the amount of waste that enters the waste stream, it would be appropriate to re-examine the plan? And as a public inquiry is the only way of doing that at this stage, is that not the best way forward, given that the proposal is already budgeted and timetabled?

David Miliband: Because that is a planning issue, I obviously have to be extremely careful about what I say, but there are two relevant points. First, Liberal Democrat Cornwall county council put forward the proposal, and local Liberal Democrats, who are no doubt in touch with local feeling, have decided that that is the right thing to do. Secondly, it would be wrong for me to pop up and announce a public inquiry today, and to interfere with the due processes. The demonisation of energy from waste is not sensible, not least given the discussion that we have had about anaerobic digestion and the waste hierarchy, and given that the hon. Gentleman, his party and I are in complete agreement that landfill is the last resort. All the evidence from Denmark and Sweden shows that we can get landfill rates down to less than 10 per cent. if we have high levels of both energy from waste and recycling.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Minister for the 2020 targets for Government Departments, but could we not be more ambitious for the Parliamentary Estate? Every day we see Order Papers,  Hansards and early-day motion booklets that are not only unread but not even unpacked. Each MP's office receives a great deal of literature, including thick glossy pamphlets that are even less read than  Focus leaflets, if that is at all believable. Is it not possible to persuade some of the organisations concerned to use electronic means of getting in touch with us? At least the delete button on the computer is fairly carbon-neutral.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which relates to the House rather than the Government. A few months ago I spoke to the Leader of the House about the matter, and he has taken it up with, I think, the Modernisation Committee—

Paddy Tipping: The House of Commons Commission.

David Miliband: I stand corrected. Having just picked up the Order Paper, I notice that it does not say anywhere on it that it is printed on recycled paper, so that will be an early task to consider. In my own office in the House, which is far from palatial, I have a green waste paper basket with a special plastic cover, and any Order Papers, plus any speeches by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), or anyone else, that I feel need to be recycled can go straight into that bin. That is a step forward.

Roger Williams: A surprisingly high proportion of food purchased by households and commercial caterers ends up as waste, and if it goes into landfill it produces a lot of methane, which is very damaging. I welcome the announcement yesterday in the energy White Paper about the increased support for anaerobic digesters. Has the Secretary of State made any estimate of the amount of food that could go into such systems, and the amount of renewable energy that would accordingly be produced?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. I think that I am right in saying that over one third of household food is wasted. Not all of it is edible, as some of it is past its sell-by date; none the less that is a remarkably high proportion. Let us understand what that means, and not just in terms of the environment: about £400 a year is being wasted by families, so that waste is actually hitting people in their pockets, as well as affecting their local environment. Our country has now started out with real drive, thanks to the energy White Paper and the announcements that I have made today on food waste. I would not want to start to suggest figures, but the potential is very great indeed.

George Young: May I press the Secretary of State a little further on the issue of resources, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)? In response to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State conceded that the White Paper was silent on resources. Until that issue is resolved, there must be some doubt about the attainability of the measures set out in the strategy. Does he believe that the ambitious target can be reached from local authorities' existing baselines? Does he anticipate getting additional grants from the Chancellor, or will any additional costs be borne by the council tax payer?

David Miliband: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Minister for local government, speaks with authority on the subject. I think that it is recognised on both sides of the House that waste costs are one of the larger pressures on local authority funds. No one would say that there were not real pressures on local authorities to go above their current spending in that regard. Obviously, we need to study the exact nature of those pressures. Of course, there are savings to be made as a result of some of the announcements that I have made today. The diversion from landfill and the avoidance of landfill tax fines is an important way of minimising the extra costs, and obviously we are looking into those issues. I am happy to write and give the exact figures, but I point out that there has been a very large increase in both the revenue and the capital support provided to local authorities to take care of waste infrastructure. There is further to go, but we have made big strides over the past 10 years.

Bob Russell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the transport over long distances of lorries full of household rubbish is not a good idea environmentally? Does he therefore agree that we should encourage local authorities to have smaller, local disposal units, rather than using just a handful of large units? If he does agree with that, will he encourage London boroughs to set up incinerators in which to burn their rubbish, instead of dumping it in Essex?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman is correct that, all other things being equal, fewer transport miles—especially by lorry—are desirable. He mentioned London; the use of barges on the Thames to take a significant part of London's waste to the Belvedere plant is an important step forward and a good use of one of London's obvious natural resource. Behind his question was the important point that Gargantuism is not the answer. Decentralised local solutions are important, including composting, to which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is right to say that we need the right balance between strategic large-scale investment and more local activity, and that is what we hope to promote.

Martin Horwood: There is much to welcome in the White Paper, including the retention of waste prevention at the top of the waste hierarchy. We must judge whether the tougher measures on wasteful packaging recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) are needed, or whether the current largely voluntary regime is working, so I am sure that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us whether we are set to meet the very first voluntary Courtauld commitment target to design out packaging waste growth in just seven months' time, and exactly how that is being measured.

David Miliband: Yes.

Whitsun Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Steve McCabe.]

Shona McIsaac: It is a privilege to be the first Member to speak in today's recess Adjournment debate. In my time in the House, I have usually been the last Member to speak in such debates. It is encouraging to see the number of people in the Chamber; the faces are certainly familiar. We must set up a recess Adjournment debate club to promote this wonderful opportunity to raise local issues. I shall pick up on some of the themes that I mentioned in the last such debate, because the issues are ongoing.
	The first subject that I want to mention is the problems regarding the A180 in north and north-east Lincolnshire. The road is constructed of concrete, and as a result is one of the noisiest in Britain. We have managed to get some sections resurfaced with low-noise materials, and that has brought phenomenal benefits to residents, but large sections have still not been resurfaced. I want to work with the people who are suffering from the noise pollution to put pressure on Transport Ministers to see whether they can find some funding to complete the resurfacing work. It is two years since the first section was resurfaced with low-noise material, so there has been an unacceptable delay for the residents who are still suffering from noise pollution.
	Increased traffic movement is another problem. Immingham is one of Britain's busiest ports, and it is growing fast, but many heavy goods vehicles go through the town centre. That raises noise levels, causes noise, pollution and disturbances, and heightens concerns about safety. I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will have a word with Transport Ministers to see whether something can be done in the short term to alleviate the problems. There are plans for a bypass, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on any proposals from my local authority, but we all know that such plans take many years to come to fruition. It is unfair that residents must suffer in the meantime.
	Immingham is one of Britain's busiest ports, so a lot of goods pass through it. One of the major commodities is coal, and there is also a large iron ore quay that supplies the steel works in Scunthorpe. There are many other industrial sites in the area, with the result that coal and iron ore dust are deposited on window sills in the town on windy days. The dust is thick and black and looks disgusting. In the recent council elections, it was the major issue mentioned by residents.
	The dust also covers windows, and people tell me that the laundry that they hang on the line before going to work ends up filthier than before they washed it. I also heard a lovely anecdote about a beautiful, fluffy white cat: if it went out on a windy day with the dust settling on the town, it would come back a mucky shade of dark grey.
	The problem is serious. I am working with Associated British Ports and North East Lincolnshire council to resolve it, and tomorrow I shall meet representatives from both organisations to try to find a solution. The association tells me that the coal piles are sprayed to keep the dust down, and that other measures are taken to alleviate matters, but the problem is still ongoing. It has been suggested that the firms that operate in the docks could go beyond the requirements of their licences in a bid to make the environment better, healthier and less polluting for the residents of Immingham. I hope that the proposals get Government backing and, given people's increased awareness of environmental issues, I believe that it may be time to look again at the operating licences, which were drawn up some time ago—another matter that I shall take up with Ministers.
	Whenever I contribute to a debate, whether it is on transport or not, I always mention the tolls for the Humber bridge. Today, I want to talk about them in connection with health care. The local reorganisation of health services means that people on the south side of the river—in Grimsby, Immingham. Cleethorpes and Barton, for example—who need cancer treatment have to travel to Hull to get it.
	Everyone knows that cancer treatment can be difficult and tiring, and that it can cause nausea, yet people in my area who need it have to make a lengthy round trip, and to pay a very high toll. Many residents, especially those on low and fixed incomes, tell me that they pay more than £5 a day every time they go for cancer treatment. That is unacceptable.
	A cross-party group of local MPs has been lobbying on the matter. We want to see whether there is a way to alter the Humber Bridge Act 1971, or to work with local health providers so that the people who need cancer services—and their families, and others—can get some sort of discount when they have to cross the bridge.
	I now turn to police community support officers, and antisocial behaviour. I brought those matters up in the Adjournment debate before the Easter recess, and I am glad to say that, perhaps due to the influence of my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, the topics that we raise do not merely fall on deaf ears. However, we are still experiencing problems recruiting PCSOs in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. We are struggling to get people to take up the jobs, even though the salary is good and the work worthy.
	The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), has told me that he wants to visit the area to see what assistance can be given to the drive to recruit more PCSOs. That is excellent news for my constituents, who support the idea of PCSOs.
	I still feel that the local authorities, police and other organisations in my area are not using to the full the powers available to them to deal with antisocial behaviour. That problem is exacerbated by the fact that we do not have all the PCSOs that we need. I recently visited Immingham school to speak to the head teacher. Not long ago, the school came out of special measures, and the fact that its results are improving is a good-news story. However, it is plagued by gangs who hang around the gates, intimidating and threatening children on their way into school.
	That is not good enough. We need something like a dispersal order to tackle that example of antisocial behaviour. It cannot be right that children on their way to school, perhaps to important exams, should suffer intimidation like that. When we talk about problems with gangs and young people, we assume that the victims are adults, but it should be acknowledged that often the victims are other children.
	Cleethorpes salt marsh is a wonderful habitat, but its growth is causing worry in the area. I have had discussions about the issue, and English Nature has asked the council to monitor the situation and see whether a solution can be brokered, but we still need ministerial involvement. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House had a word in the right ears, so that I could bring a delegation to meet Ministers and discuss this environmental issue.
	I am very pleased to have been the first Member to speak in the debate. I shall stay and listen to the other speeches with great interest. As I have said, this is one of the most marvellous opportunities Members have to raise constituency concerns: it is democracy at its best.

Simon Burns: I welcome the opportunity to raise two issues of importance in my constituency. I raised the first with the Prime Minister yesterday during Prime Minister's Question Time: the link between learning disabilities and educational difficulties such as dyslexia, and criminality.
	Two Fridays ago, I was fortunate enough to be invited by a remarkable woman in my constituency, Jackie Hewitt-Main, to visit Chelmsford prison and observe a unique project called "Mentoring 4U". In a voluntary capacity, rather than as an employee of the Prison Service, she had come up with a scheme involving her interviewing all 452 prisoners between the beginning of February and the end of April this year. She discovered that 104 had been to special needs schools or received private tutoring during their educational years. Significantly, 224 of the men—it is a male prison—had learning disabilities. She found that 185 suffered from dyslexia, 30 from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—15 as a result of head injuries—four from learning disabilities, one from dyspraxia and one from Tourette's syndrome. As part of the wider educational scheme, she established that 324 men had not passed their driving tests—which I must confess surprised me—and 276 had been excluded from school.
	The trouble with dyslexia is that until relatively recently many people did not recognise its existence. When I became a Member of Parliament 20 years ago my county council, Essex, would not acknowledge the condition. If a condition such as dyslexia is not recognised, there is obviously no provision to help dyslexic people to minimise or overcome their educational difficulties. All too often, owing to a failure or refusal to recognise the condition, people were written off as stupid or thick. That is hardly a productive or sensible way to try to help people. Fortunately, things have moved on. There is now a greater recognition and understanding of the problems, and a desire to provide help.
	The mentoring project in Chelmsford prison, run by that remarkable woman Jackie Hewitt-Main, not only identifies prisoners who suffer from dyslexia or other learning disabilities, but—using other people in the prison environment—helps them with literacy problems. It guides and mentors them to ensure that they can make progress.

Nigel Evans: Many parents look for smaller schools when they realise that their children suffer from dyslexia. Should not local authorities try to provide some form of mentoring or extra assistance for dyslexic youngsters in larger schools, so that they too can be helped?

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend is right to raise the problems of dyslexia and special needs education in mainstream schools. When it is decided that a child requires a statement, it is crucial that local education authorities ensure that it is done swiftly rather than being put off for what are effectively money-saving purposes. When a statement recommends help and extra tuition, that recommendation should be honoured, and again there should be no delay as part of a cost-cutting exercise. It is crucial that, during school years, children are provided with the help and the aids that they need.
	One should not rely solely on what the state provides through the education system. Parents within the home environment should also back up what the schools are doing with extra education, including special needs education. They should provide that when children do their homework and, at weekends, and encourage them to read and to do extra writing lessons and spelling to help to minimise the problems.
	The project in Chelmsford prison takes that work beyond the school environment. It is gratifying to go into a prison to see not only dedicated people offering their services to provide that help, but how they have reached out and involved other prisoners, who give their time and experience to help mentor and advise prisoners who suffer from dyslexia. It is an important scheme not only for the immediate benefits that it will bring to individual prisoners, but because, if it can help to minimise prisoners' educational learning problems, it will encourage them to get a better start when they leave prison. However, that depends on help being provided once they are released back into society, having served their sentence.
	The trouble facing the scheme is that, first, it is, to my knowledge, the only such scheme in the country. I think that what is going on in Chelmsford prison should be analysed and introduced in other prisons, so that other prisoners can benefit. Secondly, there is, in effect, a cut-off. When prisoners finish their sentences and go back into society, they have no way of being able to continue the work they have been doing and the help they have been receiving. More should be done to ensure that they can access help, including continued educational help, when they are released. That will help to enhance not only their self-esteem and self-confidence, but their ability to integrate into the work force and society. It will also help to minimise the possibility of reoffending and their returning to prison. I urge the Minister to urge his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to see what can be done through practical aid to ensure that the good work that has been generated by the project in Chelmsford is not lost completely following the release of a prisoner and whether such projects can be extended to other prisons for other people to benefit.
	I was heartened by the answer that the Prime Minister gave me yesterday. Not only is he aware of that matter but research has been commissioned across the area of learning disabilities and criminality. He gave a commitment that, when the work had been completed and studied—presumably by Ministers in the Ministry of Justice—it would be released. It will be interesting to see the conclusions and results of that work. I hope that more attention will be given to the matter to ensure that we can build on it.
	The Prime Minister, when in opposition, both as shadow Home Secretary and as Leader of the Opposition, created—with, I think, the help of the Prime Minister-elect—the catch-phrase "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." We can be tough on the causes of crime by identifying a problem of which many people will have been oblivious, because they think more about mainstream problems with criminality and so will not have given the matter much thought.
	Secondly, I would like to raise another—I fear, rather more controversial—issue, although I am nervous about doing so because I see the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) in his place. He criticised the Minister for Industry and the Regions for her comments last weekend about the allocation of social housing in our constituencies. I want to raise it because I believe that it is an important issue, but I do not raise it with the same nuance as the Minister did. I want to make a simpler point, which is that there is a problem in many local authority areas with the length of time individuals have to wait before they can expect to be offered social housing.
	In my own local authority of Chelmsford, we have 4,940 households on the housing waiting list, of which 3,900 live within Chelmsford and 1,040 live outside the area. If Chelmsford had a surplus of housing to provide to individuals for social housing reasons, there would be no problem. Sadly, however, as I suspect applies to almost every other local authority in the country, it does not have a surplus. Thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister, current house building in the mid-Essex area is considerable and 35 per cent. of it is social housing. Those are the guidelines laid down, so one cannot argue that no extra social housing is being provided in the Chelmsford local authority area.
	Someone brought up in Chelmsford, who has always lived there, who is now single and 21, but for a variety of reasons cannot afford either to purchase a house or to rent privately, would go on to the housing waiting list. However, I can guarantee that, because of the waiting list, such a person will not be offered social housing in Chelmsford for a significant number of years. Let me explain what puzzles me. Why are a significant number of people on the Chelmsford borough council housing waiting list living outside the area? Why are all the allocations of housing stock—with a few exceptions, because we cannot have 100 per cent. inflexibility and rigid rules—not given exclusively to people who live within the borough until there is no longer a demand?
	Chelmsford borough council rightly has a rule within its criteria that a person has to have a connection with the borough in order to get higher up the list to be allocated housing. It also has access to about 50 per cent. of nominations through housing associations. Again, it operates a scheme whereby people must have a connection by living in the borough or relevant area, which will provide extra points to enable them to get on the list. However, 50 per cent. of allocations from the housing associations do not operate that rule, which is where, I suspect, most of the non-residents of Chelmsford are getting their allocations to housing in Chelmsford. That creates a number of problems, not least among those who have lived all their lives in Chelmsford and have to wait a significant amount of time before being considered for housing. Those people are getting frustrated and they find it incomprehensible that someone who may live in another part of the country can come and live in Chelmsford while they still have to wait elsewhere, or continue to live with their parents or in overcrowded housing because they do not have enough points. The Government should look at that matter again.
	This is not a criticism; I am trying to be conciliatory. Changes that were made in 2002 have led to this becoming more of a problem, especially in the home counties and elsewhere in the south-east. The pressure on housing there is so great, and the average cost of housing has risen so dramatically that people, especially young first-time buyers, find it more and more difficult to make their first housing purchase in an area so close to London.
	I urge the Government to look again at this growing problem. I have deliberately not talked about who might be coming to live in Chelmsford, because there are no hard and fast rules, and because to do so would be irresponsible and foolish and it would be difficult to identify accurately the groups or individuals involved. They will be from across the board, but their common denominator is that they have no connection with Chelmsford. The parliamentary answers that I have received from the Minister for Housing and Planning show that, three years ago, 20 per cent. of the housing allocation went to people from outside the borough who had no connection to it. Two years ago, the figure had fallen to 14 per cent., but last year it had gone back up to 19 per cent. Given this relatively scarce resource, those figures are significant.
	The problem is putting a strain on the local community. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on this message to his colleagues in the Government, and that they will look into the matter and try to come up with a reasonable, sensible solution without pandering to other political groupings on the fringes of respectable mainstream politics.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), and I appreciate the measured way in which he has put forward his views on the housing situation in his area. It is possible to debate such issues using appropriate language and examples of the problems that we all encounter at our Friday or Saturday constituency surgeries. Our constituents are often concerned about the lack of housing available in particular areas. I will not comment again on the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions, because I have not given her notice that I would raise those issues in the House today, and because I have said all I want to say about the points that she made.
	I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. It is a matter for the Government, working with the local authorities, to ensure that we are all able to give proper, adequate explanations to our constituents, and that the overall level of housing stock is such that, when people apply for council housing, they do not have to wait months, years or, in one case, at least a decade to be re-housed. I am glad to support the hon. Gentleman and I appreciate the measured way in which he put forward his arguments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) raised a number of local issues in her speech, as is traditional in debates of this kind, but I come to the Chamber with great news: I will not be raising local issues today. That is partly because since our last recess Adjournment debate we have had a terrific result in the local elections: the Labour party has regained Leicester, ending four unhappy years of coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—

Shona McIsaac: rose—

Keith Vaz: I shall give way. Have you won in Cleethorpes as well?

Shona McIsaac: I just wanted to ask my right hon. Friend whether he was aware that four years of Conservative rule in North Lincolnshire ended earlier this month, when Labour took control of that council.

Keith Vaz: Marvellous! This is a good news story for our Whitsun Adjournment debate. We have won not only in Lincolnshire but in Leicester. In my constituency, we have won seats in Hamilton and Humberstone, and in Evington, which we have never won before. We are very pleased with that.

Nigel Evans: I do not want to pour any water on the wonderful party that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady are having, but do they not realise that there were 912 overall gains for the Conservative party that day, mostly at the expense of Labour, with a couple of hundred at the expense of the Liberal Democrats? It was a pretty bleak day.

Keith Vaz: Why does the hon. Gentleman wish to spoil our party? We are here to talk about the positive results, not the negative ones to which he has referred. We did well; good news stories are coming from my hon. Friend and myself and bad news stories are coming from the hon. Gentleman. I wish well Ross Willmott, the new leader of the council, Mary Draycott, the deputy leader, and the rest of the council. They won with a huge majority. The Liberals were reduced from 24 members to six—quite a reduction. The Conservatives remain at seven or eight. When one has a majority of that kind, one has to govern responsibly, and I hope very much—I do not, of course, interfere in local matters—that my colleagues in Leicester will govern responsibly. Judging by what they have said so far, I am sure that they will.
	I want to raise three issues. The first is in relation to the Ministry of Justice, which was formed shortly after the debate in which we welcomed the reappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) as Deputy Leader of the House. At that stage, I and other Labour Members said how pleased we were that the Ministry of Justice was to be created. I have been campaigning for one for many years. Obviously, there were going to be teething problems in bringing together the responsibilities of criminal justice and the Prison Service under the auspices of the new Secretary of State for Justice, and in taking away those responsibilities from the Home Office and giving it new responsibilities for security policy. Of course there were going to be difficulties, but nobody envisaged the outrage on the part of our judges. I say "outrage" because that is political spin on what is more than the raising of a judicial eyebrow. Normally when senior judges raise their eyebrows, we get very concerned because they do not normally do that. However, it appears that their wigs are on fire; I do not wish to alarm the Clerk of the House.  [L aughter. ] They are really upset with what is going on.
	As only judges at that level could do, they came to express their upset at the most recent meeting of the Constitutional Affairs Committee. We have not caught up with the Government and changed our name, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can tell us when we can do so, so that we are a Select Committee scrutinising a Government Department. Lord Phillips, the former Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Thomas, the senior Court of Appeal judge responsible for the negotiations, were alarmed at the way in which they had been treated. At the core of the argument is the issue of the independence of the judiciary and the ring-fencing of the courts' budget under a newly merged and reinvigorated Department of Justice. It is vital that the Government respond to the concerns of the judges.
	The Committee had before it the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, who has changed his title on so many occasions that we have forgotten what all of them were. I pay tribute to the noble Lord Falconer, who has been an absolutely great Lord Chancellor. He has been a reforming Lord Chancellor and has modernised our system of justice. He has done it with the ability to get on with people in all walks of life, whether they be judges or consumers of the Courts Service. That is why I was so surprised that when he came before the Select Committee we had reached a situation where the judges were concerned about what was going on.

Gordon Prentice: Does my friend agree that the judges were outraged because they were not properly consulted, which is on the record?

Keith Vaz: Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend; they were not consulted. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, referred to an article of 19 January in  The Daily Telegraph—not the usual journal to which we would turn to learn about such things—in which the Home Secretary announced that the Home Office was to be split in two and that the Ministry of Justice was to be created. It was only after that that he had a discussion with the Lord Chancellor. Contrary to what is often said about the Lord Chancellor being a great friend of the Prime Minister and therefore knowing everything that goes on, even the Lord Chancellor said to the Constitutional Affairs Committee that he was not aware of the matter until he got a call from someone—a high-level source—to say that the Home Secretary was about to announce it the next day. Therefore, it is clear that my hon. Friend is right: the judges were not consulted.
	What has happened since? A working party has been set up, consisting of judges and officials from the former Department for Constitutional Affairs—now the Ministry of Justice—to try to resolve two fundamental issues. The first of them is the budget issue. There is concern that if there is a crisis in the Prison Service or in criminal justice, resources will be moved from Her Majesty's Courts Service to deal with that. The recommendation is that the Courts Service's budget should be ring-fenced. The second issue is how to protect the independence of the judiciary. The recommendation is that there should be an inquiry so that it can be properly considered.
	The Government have finally got the message. I urged the Lord Chancellor to intervene personally in the negotiations. I told him not to leave that to his senior officials. I said to him that it was good to talk, and I suggested that he should get in touch with the Lord Chief Justice and begin that dialogue. I am not saying this because I or my colleagues on the Constitutional Affairs Committee recommended that, but I was pleased to learn from  The Times today that Lord Falconer has picked up the phone and had a good chat with the Lord Chief Justice and that they are beginning to talk about resolving the issue, because it would be a terrible indictment of the modernisation programme that the Government have properly engaged in if, at the 11th hour, we left the judiciary on the sidelines. The Constitutional Affairs Committee has created a sub-committee on courts and the judiciary so that we can keep monitoring the situation and how the courts and the judiciary are dealt with. I am glad that there are ongoing discussions, and I hope that we can be given some good news about them in this debate.
	One related issue is the call by the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, for a written constitution. I put that matter to the Lord Chief Justice on Tuesday. There has been a lot of discussion about whether we should have a written constitution. I am in favour. Now might be the time to begin that process. As we have a new Ministry of Justice and we are to have a supreme court, which will be housed in a new building opposite the Houses of Parliament, we might have the opportunity to discuss whether we should have a written constitution that entrenches all the rights and responsibilities of the citizens of Britain.
	My second point concerns the upcoming European Council meeting on 21 and 22 June. Sadly, it will be the farewell European summit meeting of our Prime Minister. He has taken the lead on a number of key European issues, especially enlargement. I hope that the final summit will provide an opportunity for us to talk about the reform agenda now that the EU constitution has been defeated in a number of referendums. I know that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is keen on pushing the idea of a new constitution. The Government have rightly said that now is not the time to discuss that because the issue has been dealt with. That leaves the issue of reform. We cannot proceed with a Europe of 27 countries—which we now have—and with the possibility of constructive negotiations with Balkan countries about getting them into the European Union if we do not reform how the EU operates. I hope that at the Berlin summit we will have a short statement of aims and values, as well as a practical assessment of how we might continue reforming the EU.
	Last night I had the pleasure of meeting again the Prime Minister of Belgium, Mr. Verhofstadt, whom I first met when I was Minister for Europe. I recall his pivotal role at the Nice summit in 2000, when he spent some of the time locked in a kitchen adjacent to the summit room, trying to negotiate how many votes Belgium should have in the new treaty that was to be entered into as a result of the arrival of all the eastern European countries. His view of the constitution was different from ours. He thinks—and he said this to me yesterday—that we should return to a longer document. That is certainly the view in other parts of the EU, but the position he set out is the right one. The constitution is dead, let us move on and continue with the reform agenda, because that is what will drive the EU forward.
	My final point—it is appropriate to comment today as the report has just been published—is about the way in which Channel 4 dealt with the "Big Brother" programme. I raised the issue in business questions and, as usual, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was spot on in dealing with that question. What I most admire about my right hon. Friend is the way in which he responds so eloquently and quickly to the key issues in the public domain. In particular, no member of the Cabinet is better at championing and expressing the concerns of the ethnic communities than he is. He was right to suggest to the Channel 4 board that it should consider the contents of the report very carefully.
	I remind the House that 46,000 citizens complained about the programme. At the time that the complaints were made, the chief executive of Channel 4, Andy Duncan, appeared at the Oxford media conference and ducked the issue. He refused to apologise for the hurt that had been caused by the comments that had been made to Shilpa Shetty. Worse, he did not take the opportunity to condemn racism on television. The arrogant, complacent attitude from Channel 4 was rightly condemned today in the Ofcom report, which found that there had been serious breaches of the code. Ofcom has decided that Channel 4 is to make an unprecedented apology before the next series of "Big Brother" starts next week.
	What concerns me is the reaction of Channel 4 to that serious and important adjudication by the regulator. First, it has made no apology to the victim, Shilpa Shetty. Secondly, there have been no resignations by anyone associated with the programme or the company, even though someone clearly should resign, whether it be Mr. Duncan or the editor who knew what was being broadcast. One simply cannot pursue the matter as they have and assume that nothing went wrong.
	The third issue that Channel 4 has not addressed is the need to bring forward the untransmitted feed from the house that it originally said could not be found. The regulator subsequently discovered that it was indeed in the possession of Endemol, but it was not shown to the regulator. Nobody here has seen that untransmitted material, but if it were looked at by the broadcasters it would give an impression of what they saw at the time.
	The report has important implications, not only for the way in which we discuss such issues, but for the way in which reality television should be broadcast in the future. Channel 4 has said that it is a good thing to discuss racism on television, and I wholeheartedly agree, but the debate has to be equal: I, for example, must have an opportunity to put my views across and those who disagree with me must also have that opportunity. In that programme, one minority view was displayed to millions of people in this country and throughout the world, and no alternative view was put forward. I hope that lessons will be learned, although judging from Channel 4's reaction, I do not think that they will be. However, Channel 4's board has to consider the matter, and I hope that it does so very carefully. It will make a great difference to how we conduct ourselves in future.
	Channel 4 knew about the matter and continued to broadcast. It pushed up its ratings and made considerable profits out of the programme—probably 10 per cent. of Channel 4's entire revenue comes from that programme. It is important that even greater consideration is taken of these issues, and we should be told what happened to all those profits.

Nigel Evans: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has campaigned vigorously on this issue and I hear what he says about Channel 4's failure fully to apologise for what went on in the programme. I am not a fan of the programme—I know that the right hon. Gentleman is—but the one thing that we can all applaud is the fact that its sponsor looked at the public reaction and decided to withdraw immediately, so Channel 4 has at least been hit in the pocket for allowing the programme to be transmitted. Is there not a lesson for all broadcasters that the public are so opposed to racism in any shape or form that they will not tolerate its being broadcast, even in the likes of reality television?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to pinpoint the role of the sponsors, The Carphone Warehouse and PepsiCo. One withdrew advertising, and the other sponsorship, so there was responsibility on their part. He is right, too, to highlight the fact that broadcasters have a serious responsibility. We do not all have our own television stations—I am sorry that we do not. Broadcasters therefore have great power. This issue damaged our relations with other countries. What was good about it, however, was the reaction of the public, and not just the 46,000 people who complained, who have now been vindicated by what Ofcom has said. Hats off to Ofcom for the excellent and speedy way in which it conducted its inquiry before the next "Big Brother" begins next week. Hats off, too, to Shilpa Shetty, for the very dignified way in which she has conducted herself, although she has been a victim throughout these proceedings.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those three issues, and I wish everyone a very pleasant Whitsun recess.

Nigel Evans: It is always good to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I intervened on him on one issue so I will not return to that. However, he also mentioned the EU treaty, and I want to pick up on that.
	Irrespective of what is now being discussed behind closed doors—we know what the French and Dutch said about the original EU constitution—the fact is that the British people were offered a referendum on the issue. We do not know what will come about. We know that Angela Merkel wants to push on with the constitution, and we know that Nicolas Sarkozy, whom we congratulate on his presidency, agrees with her and wants some form of constitutional treaty. What is in a name? A number of the issues included in the original EU constitution will be introduced in the constitutional treaty through the back door.
	Our current Prime Minister—Prime Minister A, as I refer to him—has said that the British people are to be denied a referendum. I hope that Prime Minister B, when he takes over, will not listen to him. Prime Minister B ought to be negotiating the constitutional treaty, because he is the one who will have to pick up the tab. He ought to let Prime Minister A know that if he, Prime Minister B, is not happy with what is suggested, he will not accept it as a fait accompli but will allow the British people that referendum. There is a health warning for the current Prime Minister.

Keith Vaz: We disagree on some issues, but I think that we agree that, after the referendums in France and other countries, the constitution has gone. Surely, however, the hon. Gentleman agrees that the EU still has to reform. We simply cannot have a situation in which 27 Heads of Government sit down together at a summit and each wants to make statement. There must be reform of the decision-making process, which does not necessarily mean that we need a treaty change.

Nigel Evans: I think that we are talking about fundamental changes as far as the constitution is concerned. I agree that change is needed, as we have made dramatic progress since the days when there were 12 or 15 countries. There are now 27 countries, and Croatia is waiting in the wings, along with other Balkan states, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. There is even the possibility of Turkey acceding to the European Union, so it is a different animal from what it was a few years ago. Of course, procedural changes must be made to the way in which the organisation works, but finally it comes down to the sovereignty not just of Parliament but of the British people, who should decide whether they are happy with those changes. It is not something that should be cobbled together behind doors. If they are common-sense measures, the common-sense population in this country will endorse them. However, if things are being pushed through the back door in an underhand way—behind the smokescreen of trying to make things better, huge chunks of sovereignty are being transferred from sovereign Parliaments to the EU—the British people should decide if that is the way they wish to go.
	I shall talk briefly about three other issues. The first is related to my last point, as it concerns efforts to preserve our way of life in rural villages and communities. The issue of post offices is relevant, but the subject that I want to address does not relate to the recent announcement of 2,500 post office closures, because my views on that and the huge impact it will have on the rural way of life are well known. BT has announced that it wishes to give discounts to people with direct debits, whereas people who pay by cash or cheque at the post office will be penalised. That is a fact of life. People will receive a lower bill or money off as long as they set up a direct debit. That does nothing to help to preserve the fabric or network of post offices, so I hope that BT and all the other utilities will look at their responsibility to do more to help the one shop left in villages and small towns have a future. On some utility bills people have to look very hard to discover that they can pay in the post office. One has to be Inspector Clouseau to find any mention at all of the post office on those bills, so I hope that the utilities will not only stop charging people who use the post office some sort of fine, but make it plain that they support the network of British rural and urban post offices by making it far clearer that people can pay their utility bills in post offices.
	Secondly, I must declare an interest as the owner of a small retail store in Swansea before addressing the amount of shoplifting that goes on. The British Retail Consortium has lobbied strongly for the retention of custodial sentences for repeat offenders. It says:
	"Ninety per cent. of shoplifting offences are carried out by repeat offenders...Crime costs shops more than £2 billion each year and the number of shoplifting offences has risen by 70 per cent. since 2000."
	Taking a soft line against people who repeatedly go into retail outlets and shoplift must not be tolerated. The crime has cost retailers more than £13 billion since 2000—as I said, the number of offences has risen by 70 per cent.—and, importantly, the BRC says:
	"Sixty per cent. of violent incidents that happen in stores occur when staff attempt to detain criminals or protect property from theft."
	As Members may remember, when I was working at the convenience store on Christmas eve several years ago, I detained someone trying to shoplift a crate of beer and he turned violent on me. The vast majority of workers in retail outlets tend to be female these days, and the last thing they want is to confront violence from someone high on drugs or inebriated. I hope the Government will accept that there can be no soft line on retail crime.
	Finally, I want to speak about agriculture, which is vital to my constituency, as it is to others, including that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Farming is like any other business and if farmers produce a product that does not make money, and costs more to produce than to sell, their business will not last long.
	In Ribble Valley last Friday, I chaired a debate on the future of British farming on behalf of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Many issues were raised, but one that was raised time and again by farmers and others was food security. It is amazing how little regard is paid to food security. Most people are used to a plentiful supply of food. Under the old EU, there were food mountains and everybody was disgruntled at the huge costs of maintaining them. Nowadays, however, when we go to supermarkets we are disgruntled not only about the extra packaging but about the origins of some of the produce.
	The food miles that accumulate on products are a cause for concern. Although imports help farmers who live many thousands of miles away, they do not help local farmers in areas such as Ribble Valley. Recently, there has been a reduction of food miles for organic products sold in supermarkets, but the rate is not as good as it could be. The Soil Association's latest figures, for 2006, show a marked improvement. Waitrose and Marks and Spencer source 89 per cent. of their organic products from the UK. Tesco has improved dramatically—the rate has gone up to 78 per cent., while Asda's rate is 69 per cent. Although the improvements are welcome, why cannot all supermarkets at least do as well as Waitrose? If supermarkets source their foods locally, it gives a huge boost to farmers.
	One of the speakers at the conference was Chris Dee, head of purchasing for Booths, one of our regional supermarkets, a community spirited, family-owned chain. He said that at least 75 per cent. of the fresh meat and 42 per cent. of the bread products in Booths stores are sourced from Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire or Yorkshire, which is where the stores are located. There is a proper link between the supermarkets and local growers, which is extremely important, but not all supermarkets appear to think in a similar vein.
	I suspect that some consumers are quite happy that the price of some products has barely changed for 20 years, but that situation cannot continue in the long term. If their salaries had not improved in real terms for 20 years, those consumers would be very angry. They have received real increases in their salaries over the past 20 years—farmers have not; indeed, the incomes of some farmers, in particular dairy producers, have actually gone down. We shall not encourage new entrants to farming if they see no future in the industry and no income for their families. If we want new entrants, we have to ensure that they a have worthwhile job to do. Many people from towns and cities come into rural areas and marvel at how wonderful it all looks. That is only because there are working farms in those areas. It does not happen by accident.
	In the recent report from the all-party group on dairy farmers, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) stated that
	"in some cases dairy farmers are being paid between 16 and 17 pence per litre, a sum which is totally unsustainable if dairy farming is to have a future in this country".
	Chorley neighbours my constituency as well, and the hon. Gentleman has many dairy farms in his constituency, as do I. Booths sources much of its milk locally and has got the producers to form a consortium, Bowland Milk. Booths has shown that as a result of proper marketing and brand recognition, people are prepared to pay a little more for that milk, in the knowledge that more is going to the farmer as well. Not only has Booths' share of liquid milk sales gone up by 10 per cent., but the premium to farmers has increased dramatically by 15 to 20 per cent. I hope that we can look again at how we can assist farmers.
	In the Budget there was reference to 4x4 vehicles and the increase in the tax on them. I state again that although in Sloane square they are "Chelsea tractors", they are working farming vehicles on the farms in and around the Ribble Valley, so I hope we can give some support to farmers who find it essential to have those vehicles on their farms.
	As the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) said, these debates are always a good opportunity for us to range far and wide, and to speak on matters that have been pent up in us for many weeks, without the straitjacket of a formal debate on a specific subject. I always find these recess debates useful. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you get a good week's rest before we come back early in June to carry on in the last few weeks of the current Prime Minister's reign.
	I would be interested if the Minister could say something about what we can expect over the next few weeks and after 27 June, and how much, if any, taxpayers' money will be involved if the posts of Deputy Prime Minister and deputy leader of the Labour party are divided. As someone who wants good value for the British taxpayer, the Minister will no doubt want to ensure that if the two jobs are split not a penny goes to the deputy leader of the Labour party and we get better value from the new deputy Prime Minister.

Gordon Prentice: I am glad the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) got that off his chest.
	I shall speak briefly and pick up one or two of the points made by my friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) in a thoughtful speech. He spoke about the reorganisation of the Home Office and the creation of the Ministry of Justice, and reminded us that he is a member of the Constitutional Affairs Committee and also a member of the Sub-Committee that has been set up to look at the courts— [Interruption.]—forgive me, Chair of the Sub-Committee that will keep an eye on things. He told us that there would be an inquiry into how the independence of the judiciary can be protected. That is what I jotted down.

Keith Vaz: The judges have asked for an inquiry. It has not yet been conceded.

Gordon Prentice: I thank my friend for clarifying that. What a state of affairs, that the judiciary should be compelled to ask for such a thing after the creation of a new Ministry, the Ministry of Justice. The judges were not consulted at all. They were completely sidelined. It was a disgrace that the Lord Chief Justice found out about the proposals from the pages of  The Sunday Telegraph. What on earth was going through the minds of the people who took that decision, that made them think they could split the Home Office, create a Ministry of Justice, but not tell the judiciary? Being macho is not mucho. They should have talked to the judges.
	My friend the Member for Leicester, East has talked about the fact that we do not have a written constitution. We are virtually the only Parliament among the so-called mature democracies that gives Ministers huge, untrammelled powers completely unstrained by a written constitution.
	I speak as a loyal Labour Member of Parliament who always supports the Government when they are right but who can be a bit critical when they lose their way. When proposals that are cavalier, that have not been thought through and that are capricious are introduced, it is as well that Government Members speak out rather than leaving it to the Opposition. It was not only the current Lord Chief Justice who said that what happened was—this is my word, not his—scandalous, but the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, who said that the proposals
	"raised concerns about our liberty".
	He also told the BBC that
	"We should work it out beforehand and not wait until we have created the change and then somehow or other try to scramble to get it into place."
	That is exactly what happened. The whole thing has been a complete farce.
	In an editorial on 10 May this year entitled "Whitehall farces", the  Financial Times stated that
	"A strong and costed case is needed before reorganisations".
	The editorial stated that the Home Office-Ministry of Justice split
	"has been pushed through in just six weeks from announcement to execution. It is full of loose ends, lacks a business plan and carries real risks that some of the difficulties that made the case for a smaller Home Office in the first place may be compounded."
	Yet we have waved through the proposal, because the present Home Secretary told us that the Home Office is not fit for purpose and that something needs to happen. The proposal was waved through, and the people who should have been consulted were not consulted.
	The reorganisation culture is almost Maoist. We have had endless reorganisations of the national health service and have gone round in a circle. There have been endless reorganisations of public bodies and in Whitehall. The historical figures are interesting. Twenty-eight Departments were created between 1960 and 1979, which was a long time ago, and by 1981, 13 of those Departments had been wound up. Since 1997, we have had musical chairs. We have had the Department of Transport, the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, who disappeared in a puff of blue smoke, and now we have the Deputy Prime Minister's Office.
	When the Government were elected in 1997, we had the Department of Transport, which morphed through two or three subsequent creations and has now become the Department for Transport. It was the Department of Transport; 10 years later, it is the Department for Transport. The Department for Productivity, Energy and Industry lasted for 24 hours, when the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not like the idea and ordered the permanent secretary to get a workman to take down the plaque that had been attached to the front of the building in Victoria just along the road. That tells us that such things are not thought through. It is capricious, and sometimes we should say, "Stop and think."
	I raise the matter now because we are shortly to get a new Prime Minister, and in the way of these things we will get more reorganisations. I have here a cutting from the  Financial Times of 10 April, when its readers were told:
	"Gordon Brown is 'seriously considering' creating a super-ministry covering energy and the environment, which would pave the way for the...break-up of the Department of Trade and Industry, according to Whitehall insiders."
	On 15 May, we were told:
	"Mr Brown has mooted the possibility that energy policy could shift from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs."
	On 18 May, again in the FT—I read it religiously—we were told, under the headline "Brown at work on Whitehall shake-up" that he is
	"looking to merge energy and environment policy and create a new ministry of science and technology."
	Watch out for that one. Then, just a few days ago, on 20 May, in  The Sunday Times this time, we were told:
	"No final decisions have been made on how to reconfigure departments".
	I would put money on it that we are going to see a big flurry of activity and a huge shake-up of Whitehall, and I am not entirely sure that in the long run it will make much difference to how services are delivered.
	This reconfiguration of Whitehall is carried through without any reference to Parliament whatsoever. The powers derive from the royal prerogative and are used extensively. Way back in 1989, the Labour party said of the royal prerogative that we recognise the need
	"to ensure that all actions of government are subject to political and parliamentary control, including those actions now governed by the arbitrary use of the Royal Prerogative to legitimise actions which would otherwise be contrary to law".
	In 1993, the Labour party said:
	"It is where power is exercised by government under cover of royal prerogative that our concerns are greatest...Here massive power is exercised by executive decree without accountability to Parliament and sometimes without its knowledge."
	We know that to be the case. In 1994, my friend the Leader of the House said:
	"the royal prerogative has no place in a modern western democracy"
	and that it has been
	"used as a smoke-screen by Ministers to obfuscate the use of power for which they are insufficiently accountable."
	That must change. If my friend the Leader of the House becomes Deputy Prime Minister, as we read in the press, I hope that he will be true to his word, even though it is a decade old, and do something about the use of prerogative powers.
	It is perfectly possible to bring those prerogative powers into Parliament and to establish them by statute. We have done it before, for example, in the Interception of Communications Act 1985, the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. It is therefore possible. The powers to organise the civil service and reorganise Whitehall Departments derive from prerogative. I believe that they should be given to Parliament through a civil service Act.
	The Government acknowledged that there should be a civil service Act but have done precious little to advance that. The Public Administration Committee published a draft Bill and the Government consulted on a civil service measure, but they have not introduced it or published the details of the consultation that they conducted in 2004. The measure has been put on the back burner, with Ministers saying that they agree in principle with a civil service Bill but that it never materialises because there is no legislative time and so on for it.
	Not only Labour Members—and not only me and my friends on the Public Administration Committee—believe that there should be a civil service Bill. When the shadow Foreign Secretary appeared before us a year or two ago, he told us that the US Congress and our sister Parliament in Ottawa—which is almost a mirror image of this place—must approve all major Government reorganisation. So it can be done. We do not want to turn government into a sclerotic business whereby it is impossible to get things through, but in major reorganisations—not the Department for Productivity, Energy and Industry, which lasted 24 hours, but splitting the Home Office in two and creating a Ministry of Justice—we should have a say. It is a scandal that we do not.
	Consultation papers were published on the reorganisation of the police force. That, too, has gone on the back burner, but at least consultation took place. We did not have a consultation on reorganising the Home Office. Not only judges say that it is time to change how things are done. The former Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler of Brockwell, appeared before the Public Administration Committee recently. He said that his views had changed and that he believed that there should be a debate in Parliament. He went on to suggest,
	"maybe hearings before a select committee and the Government to make its case and to take time to consider."
	Many people argue the same case. Lord Butler talked about the costs of reorganisation. He said:
	"More than you think. They are very expensive."
	That applies not only to the one-off costs, but opportunity costs and transitional costs. They are huge.
	I tried to raise such issues on 30 April when I asked the Home Secretary a straightforward question. I have the relevant copy of  Hansard before me. I asked him whether he would issue a consultation paper setting out the advantages and disadvantages of dividing the Home Office in two. He chose to ignore the question. A big event was happening that day. The fertiliser bombers had just been sentenced to life imprisonment and the Home Secretary used my question as a vehicle to talk about something completely different. In my supplementary question, I said that the Home Secretary had not answered my question but he disregarded it again and went sailing off to discuss the fertiliser bombers. I hope that I am in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised the fact that the Home Secretary had not responded to my question with the Speaker on a point of order, and in subsequent correspondence, the Speaker said that I could raise the matter in today's Adjournment debate on the grounds that the Home Secretary had not properly replied to my question. I spoke to the Clerks on the subject, and it is a parliamentary procedural curiosity that it is impossible to hold an Adjournment debate on matters that fall within the remit of the Prime Minister. Although I wanted to speak about the things that I have just spoken about, I could not secure an Adjournment debate, because although the Home Secretary was the frontman, it was the Prime Minister's prerogative powers that were being exercised.
	I have drawn up early-day motion 1396, in which I ask the Procedure Committee to address the anomaly whereby Adjournment debates cannot be secured on matters that fall within the responsibility of the Prime Minister. In it, I suggest that the Speaker could nominate a Cabinet Minister or another appropriate Minister to stand in for the Prime Minister in those circumstances. I have left that issue with the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), and I hope that something will happen. There is a real lacuna, and it means that over the next few months a lot of debate about reorganisations of the kind that I have mentioned will be stifled.
	That sounds a nerdy point, does it not? [Hon. Members: "No!"] I stand up at the end of term and talk about machinery-of-Government issues, and most people, I am sure, are not interested, but the subject goes to the heart of the way in which we are governed. Do we want a system in which the Prime Minister of the day—I am not talking about the current Prime Minister or the next one—has unfettered power to do what he or she wishes? That is what the current situation amounts to. I would like a situation in which Parliament could assert itself. It should not act as a brake on the Executive unduly, but it should cause them to think twice before they embark on a huge change.

John Leech: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, not least because earlier today I did not expect that I would get here, as I was taking part in a charity football match at Stamford Bridge to help raise money in aid of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. I should like to thank Chelsea football club for hosting the event, and all the former professional footballers who took part in the game and showed us members of the parliamentary football team why we never fulfilled our ambition of becoming professional footballers. I would also like to say a great thank you to Neville Southall for letting a ball go straight between his legs, which meant that I got to score a goal at Stamford Bridge this morning.
	I want to raise two issues of considerable interest and concern to south Manchester, namely the proposed sell-off and redevelopment of part of the Marie Louise gardens in Didsbury in my constituency, and Trafford council's decision to cut funding for the Mersey valley warden service. The Mersey valley borders my constituency, and in fact part of it is within my constituency boundaries. The Marie Louise gardens are an open public space in West Didsbury that was bequeathed by a Mrs. Silkenstadt to the people of Manchester back in 1903, in memory of her only child, Marie Louise, who died young. Several years ago, part of the gardens behind the lodge were used by the gardeners for greenhouses and sheds in which to grow plants, and as a maintenance depot. Over time, the council has allowed the area to fall into disrepair, and it has been unused. A covenant had been placed on the land that restricted its use to public gardens for the enjoyment of local people, but Labour-run Manchester city council, which neglected the gardens for many years, now wants to sell the section behind the lodge for development.
	I am sure that the House can imagine how local people have reacted to the plan. The West Didsbury residents association has launched a campaign to save the gardens from development and, as of yesterday, nearly 2,500 people had signed a petition against their sale. Last month a protest picnic was held in the gardens. Even though it rained all afternoon, in excess of 400 people turned up. The council tried to scupper the picnic by claiming that people did not have permission to gather in the gardens, but the event went ahead anyway.
	The West Didsbury residents association has also spent a considerable amount of time looking for living relatives of Mrs. Silkenstadt. It has found support in Jan Silkenstadt, who is now involved in trying to enforce the covenant on the land. The campaign has also received sterling support from West Didsbury's three local Liberal Democrat councillors, and in Parliament, where I have tabled early-day motion 1263. I urge hon. Members to support that EDM.
	Unfortunately, the protests have fallen on deaf ears so far. The council seems determined to go ahead with the sale, claiming that the area involved is not part of the original gardens but merely a maintenance depot, although photographic proof shows clearly that it is part of the gardens and therefore subject to the covenant. The council's dodgy dossier of evidence is full of errors, but at least the new executive member for leisure has agreed to review the evidence. We hope that the council can be persuaded to change its mind.
	The case has highlighted the inadequacies of covenants, which, all too often, are not worth the paper that they are written on. Perhaps we should wonder how much land would have been gifted to local authorities over the past couple of hundred years if the benefactors had realised that their bequests would end up being sold to the highest bidder. At a time of increasing pressure to build on every available piece of land, it is vital that our parkland be retained and looked after, so that it can continue to provide quality open space. Selling off part of Marie Louise gardens sets a dangerous precedent.
	Another serious threat to services in the area is Tory Trafford council's decision to cut funding to the Mersey valley warden service, which is a partnership between Manchester city council and Trafford borough council. Without even discussing their plans in the joint committee, Trafford councillors decided to slash the borough's contribution to the budget by more than a third. There was no consultation with the public.
	I wrote to the Tory leader of Trafford council, Susan Williams, asking her to reconsider her plans. Unfortunately, her response was very negative, and her only explanation for the cuts was to blame them on the council's lack of Government funding. She offered no solution to the problem of how vital local services might be retained.
	So much for the Conservatives' commitment to the local environment. They slash budgets and cut services, but what does that mean for the Mersey valley? At present, we are cannot be sure, but at the very least the result will be cuts in jobs or services, with the visitor centre in Sale a probable target. One thing that is certain is that the council's plans for the Mersey valley have aroused as much opposition as did their proposed sale of Marie Louise gardens. Thousands of people have signed a petition against the cuts, and many have voiced their opinions and concerns on various websites.
	I shall read out a couple of quotations from residents in my constituency. Steve Connor of Chorlton wrote:
	"Greenspace is in far too short supply across Greater Manchester—we need to cherish and nurture the Mersey Valley and pump investment into it, not pull out! This is a HUGELY important resource for thousands and thousands of people."
	Zoe Power wrote
	"A reduction in funding to the Mersey Valley is a disappointingly short-sighted decision by Trafford Council and illustrates the current lack of priority they place on our environment."
	I pay tribute to the work that is being done by "friends" groups across the Mersey valley in opposing and trying to reverse the cuts. Let me mention particularly two of my constituents, Dave Bishop and Tracey Pook, who run the two friends groups in my constituency. Without the sterling work of the friends groups, Trafford council will never change its mind.

Andrew Robathan: I believe that this is the first time I have spoken in an end of term Adjournment debate of this kind, and I am very pleased to be doing so. I apologise for having been out of the Chamber during some of the debate. The speeches that I have heard have been interesting and illuminating. I do not intend to concentrate on local issues, although I may touch on one or two at the end of my speech. I want to focus on an issue of fundamental importance to everyone in the Chamber, and indeed everyone in the country who cares about the integrity of the electoral system—which I hope means most people.
	Following the debacle in Scotland, which we debated in the Chamber yesterday, it was revealed that more than 140,000 votes were discounted. No one knows how many electors were involved, because it is impossible to calculate how many were behind those 140,000 votes. That must surely make everyone in the Chamber deeply concerned. I was most interested to hear many Labour Members from Scotland in particular call for a restoration of the first-past-the-post system in Scotland to replace the convoluted, complicated and confusing system that has been imposed.
	Students of history—I am a former student of history, so I hope I get this right—may recall that back in the 19th century, the great Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867, along with other measures, established this country as the parliamentary democracy in which we have grown up. In the days when the British empire covered a quarter of the globe, those reforms allowed this country to be considered a beacon of democratic integrity. It was used as an example by a huge number of other countries, at a time when not many countries had a democracy like ours.
	I can also tell the three Labour Members who are present that it was the reforms of the 19th century, which were not carried out by any one party exclusively, that allowed the rise of the Labour party. I would probably have been among the wicked Tories then—as I am now. Those reforms meant that employers could not breathe down the necks of their employees while they cast their votes. They established free, fair and private voting, so that no one knew how anyone else had voted. They also got rid of the Hogarthian scenes of treating that could be seen at every election before 1832. Rotten boroughs ended in 1832 as well.
	The beauty of the system that was in place until 1997 was that it was simple. Everyone understood it. You went to the polling booth, put a cross on a piece of paper and walked out of the booth. No one knew how you had voted unless you wanted to tell them. The system worked well: I do not think that any party, except possibly the Liberals in the past, had any reason to complain about it, and certainly the Labour party in 1997 had no reason to complain about the way in which that election had gone. We did, but I do not complain about the way in which people voted.
	I first became aware of the undermining of the integrity of our electoral system in 2005, in the run-up to the general election, when, as a shadow Defence Minister, I discovered that service voters had been largely disfranchised because they were not on the register following changes introduced by this Government. I especially remember seeing a group of people in Basra, where soldiers were serving this country and in grave danger of being wounded or worse. I believe that I spoke to 12 people, only two of whom were registered to vote. One told me, "We're not allowed to be registered to vote if we're in the Army, are we?"
	I raised the matter endlessly in January, February and March 2005, and I have to say that it is not to the credit of the then Defence Minister, Ivor Caplin—who is no longer in the House—that he said
	"the situation is not nearly as bad as it seems"—[ Official Report, 20 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 1002.]
	Well, it was. Less than 40 per cent. of service personnel were registered to vote. It is difficult to find out how many of their families were registered. They move a lot, and the electoral registration officers were not catching up with them under the new system. When I was in the Army, I registered once and that lasted me 15 years. Actually, that is not quite true, as I moved, so I had to register twice.
	I am glad to say that some changes have taken place, and the situation is better than it was. The Electoral Commission has moved, although it was pretty slow. I found it depressing that the Government at the time, as I have said, were not very interested in ensuring that people had the vote, which is bizarre.

Nigel Evans: My hon. Friend will recognise that, as members of the Council of Europe, we sometimes lecture other countries about how they should conduct their own democracies, including ensuring that every citizen above the age of 18 is able to vote. Those countries will be looking at some of the antics in this country, including the lack of service voters, and the problems with postal votes. Perhaps he is aware that the Council of Europe is conducting an inquiry into the shambles of some of the postal vote frauds that we have had in this country.

Andrew Robathan: I was not aware of that, but I am delighted to hear it. As my hon. Friend rightly says, this country used to be somewhere that could be shown as an example to others. I fear that that is no longer the case.
	In Scotland earlier this month, we had the e-counting fiasco. I will not go through all the details because they were much rehearsed in the debate yesterday, but it was appalling. Someone thought, "Let's bring in e-counting. It sounds marvellous." We all know that new Labour likes modernising. We have had a lot of that. What it meant was that more than 140,000 votes were not allowed.
	We have had e-voting pilots. I have not followed those very closely, but why are we having those pilots when everyone, including the Electoral Commission, is saying that e-voting will be less safe than anything we have now? I can use the internet, just. I use e-mail, despite my advanced age.

David Evennett: You're in your prime.

Andrew Robathan: I thank my hon. Friend.
	I do not know how to hack into systems, but some people do. If the Pentagon can be hacked into, the Blaby district council website on conducting elections can be. It is as simple as that. No one in the House has any idea what it could lead to if we go down the route of e-voting.
	We are talking about all-postal voting pilots. Postal voting is not a panacea. I would have thought that everyone knew that. I have known the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) for some years. He will probably agree that postal voting on demand has been a disaster. For years, Members of Parliament have had postal votes. People could get a postal vote if they really needed one. Now, people have been encouraged to take postal votes. What has happened? As we know from the case in Birmingham not two years ago, we have been reduced to the status of a banana republic.
	I do not know how many hon. Members read  The  Sunday Times insight team report about three weeks ago about postal voting in Leeds. The inquiry was conducted by a couple of under-cover reporters. I do not particularly like to quote under-cover reporters because from time to time some of them are pretty dodgy people, if I can put it that way without being too unkind. The report was about Labour activists, and the reporters went around with them. The result was shocking. The activists were going around helping people to fill in postal votes and then collecting them. They were deliberately getting round the systems that the Electoral Commission had tried to establish to ensure that postal voting was not corrupt. I am afraid that it is corrupt, and we should have no more truck with postal voting on demand. Of course we want people to vote, but is it too much to ask people to wander down every couple of years or so to a polling station and put a cross in the box?
	After the chaos in Scotland and the corruption that has been identified in postal voting, one would think that we would want to move on, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House would say that we must revisit the integrity of our electoral system. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case.
	Let me turn briefly to proportional representation, which has been introduced in Scotland and Wales. If my memory serves me correctly—someone will correct me if I am wrong—I believe it was the d'Hondt system in Scotland and Wales, and now we have the single transferable vote for local government elections in Scotland. It is obviously not a simple system because, notwithstanding what one Scottish Labour Member said yesterday, I do not think that the Scots are any less intelligent than others. I see one Scottish Member in his place, so I will say that I am quite sure that they are not. However, they found the system pretty baffling, and I am not surprised.

Alan Reid: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the STV system for local government actually produced very few spoiled ballot papers, because the electors understood it perfectly and knew how to work it. Equally, the additional member system, used in 1993 and 2003, produced very few spoiled ballot papers. The difference this time was that Labour introduced a new form of ballot paper for the 2007 parliamentary elections, which was very confusing in that people had to mark two Xs on the one paper. That is what caused the problem—not the system, but the badly designed ballot paper.

Andrew Robathan: I read that the ballot paper was badly designed, though I did not actually have one because I am not registered to vote in Scotland. However, I understood that until the beginning of the month, Scotland was run by a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, or have I got that wrong?

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that for the last eight years Scotland has been run by a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, but the design of the ballot paper for the Scottish Parliament elections is a reserved power for the Westminster Government, and it was designed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Andrew Robathan: I understand that the Liberal Democrat party did not register an objection and said that the paper was fine—whereas the Conservative party, to its credit, failed to reply at all! That is often the best answer.

Gordon Prentice: Is it not the case that the decision to run the two elections together—for the Scottish Parliament and for local government—was taken in Holyrood and not here?

Andrew Robathan: Indeed. I thank the hon. Gentleman. As I said, I have known him for a long time, and we have even agreed from time to time. He is absolutely right. Responsibility lies both in Westminster and in Holyrood.
	What was proportional representation meant to bring about? The new Labour Government could certainly say that it was not meant to bring about an SNP Government in Holyrood. I suspect that some people on the Treasury Bench are scratching their beards wondering whether that was what they thought they would achieve when they voted for PR. In Wales, through the so-called reforms for the Welsh Assembly elections, we have achieved chaos. There is still no Government there. It is 24 May, and if my memory serves me correctly, the elections were exactly three weeks ago today.

Nigel Evans: A shambles.

Andrew Robathan: Yes, it is a complete shambles and I cannot believe that that is what the electorate want. We have chaos in Wales, chaos in Scotland, and proportional representation is being revealed for what many of us always thought it was—a disaster. As I said, I was struck by how many Scottish Labour MPs in yesterday's debate called for a return of first past the post for Scottish Parliament elections.
	How have the Government responded to this chaos? The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), who I believe is responsible for these matters, has said that the important thing is to ensure that more people are voting, and more people are registered to vote. Actually, as we have seen, the number of people voting has reduced dramatically over the past 10 years—in general elections, at least. The turnout in 2005 should give us all cause for grave concern. I understand, of course, that that was nothing to do with proportional representation. Nevertheless, it was with extra postal voting and all the rest of it—part of "modernisation", to use the Government's favourite term.
	When the Electoral Commission and others put forward the idea of individual voter registration, the Under-Secretary said from the Treasury Bench—I am allowed to quote her; I am not attacking her in any way—that when it was introduced in Northern Ireland, the number of people on the electoral register went down. Surely that is the point—because the people left on the electoral register then were bona fide electors, whereas when I was young, and until very recently it was always said in Irish elections, particularly Northern Ireland elections, "Vote early, vote often," because people had more than one vote. The electoral system in Northern Ireland was certainly corrupt until quite recently.

Gordon Prentice: The Electoral Commission argued strongly for individual voter registration, yet the Government insisted on household registration. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the correct response of the Electoral Commission would have been to threaten to resign en masse? That would have forced the Government to rethink, and to try to justify their position.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. There has been criticism recently. In Sir Alistair Graham's last report on standards in public life, he criticised the Electoral Commission. He was, of course, appointed by the Government; no one could accuse him of being a wicked Tory. He said that the commission had not been robust enough, and that it had not pursued the policies that it should have done.
	I hate to say it, but I find the Government's reaction strange. It is almost as though they do not care about the way in which our electoral system and our democracy have been undermined. That is deeply worrying. Where would we be if there were chaos similar to that in Wales and Scotland at a general election? I hope that that will not happen, because we have not yet changed the system for elections to Westminster, although I suspect that some people might wish to do so, and not just the Liberal Democrats. We would be left looking like the banana republic to which that judge so rightly referred two years ago.
	The hon. Member for Pendle tempts me to talk about the Electoral Commission. I do not especially want to criticise Sam Younger, but I naively thought that the commission was appointed not only to police the electoral system but really to get a grip on it, and ensure its integrity. I have had this discussion with Sam Younger in the past. It seems to me that he and his commission are much more interested in e-voting pilots and all that kind of nonsense than they are in establishing an electoral roll that is entirely trustworthy, for the benefit of democracy in this country.
	Fortuitously, the Electoral Commission's corporate plan arrived this morning. Yes, it talks about a complete and accurate electoral register, and about well-run elections, but it seems more excited about party election finance. Of course that is an important subject, but surely the most important thing of all is that the only people who vote in our elections are those who have the right to do so, and that everyone can trust the results of those elections, whether we like them or not; often we do not.
	I have spoken for quite long enough, but I want to make two brief local points. I have been in correspondence with the Department for Transport for some years about the noise and pollution problems on the M1 between Narborough and Enderby. The M1 is probably used by many hon. Members; I suspect that the hon. Member for Pendle uses it occasionally. The housing on that stretch is very close to the road; it was built before the road became the M1. There is therefore a terrible noise problem, although we have had some resurfacing. There is also the problem of the pollution from the traffic going by.
	This is not an easy problem to solve. The Deputy Leader of the House may rest assured that I do not blame the Government for all the noise and pollution on our roads. It would be helpful, however, if he could ask the Minister with responsibility for roads to come to my constituency and meet the motorway action group for Narborough and Enderby, which has wanted to meet him for some time. That Minister's predecessor, who used to sit for Plymouth and whose name has briefly escaped me—

Paddy Tipping: David Jamieson.

Andrew Robathan: David Jamieson came to the area—but unfortunately, only as an election stunt during the general election campaign in 2005. He was slightly put off because I was there when he got there. Never mind; these things happen. I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House could pass on my invitation, however.
	My second local point is about post offices. I know that the issue is hardly unique to my constituency. I represent a largely rural constituency in which post offices are greatly valued. Many have now closed. It is true that some of them closed before 1997, but the rate of closure has now accelerated. Following the recent pronouncement, it is obvious that there will be more closures in my constituency and in others. The Government have shown a paucity of imagination in their treatment of the Post Office. They may have spent money on it, but they have not given sub-postmasters—all of whom are small business people—the freedom to operate that they should have. At the same time, the Government have been taking away the business that post offices have had from the Department for Work and Pensions. I hope that in the next few months the Government will take steps to free up postmasters—although I have to say that I rather doubt whether they will.

Liam Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is being suggested this afternoon that during the recess, the Government will take ownership of the report into the seizing of British service personnel by the Iranians. Mr. Speaker has said on a number of occasions that when reports are awaited by the House, it is quite wrong for informed speculation or leaks to appear in the press ahead of the House being told. Through your good offices, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could the Government be made aware that it would be unacceptable for any information from the report to appear in the press ahead of the Select Committee or the House seeing it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously, these are extremely important matters, and I am sure that the responsible Ministers will want to report to the House of Commons at the earliest appropriate moment. The Deputy Leader of the House is here today, and I am sure that the point made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) will be transmitted through the usual channels.

David Heath: May I echo the point of order made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), with which I entirely agree?
	First, I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the House for being out of the Chamber for the early parts of the debate due to my duties elsewhere in the House. I am glad to have returned and to have heard some excellent speeches.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that changes to the machinery of government should not be made at the whim of a Prime Minister, written on the back of a fag packet and presented as a fait accompli to the House. They should be properly considered and properly costed. We should be clear about the expected advantages of any changes to the structure of government. The best way of doing that is to produce a considered White Paper, present it to the House, let it be scrutinised and proceed with implementation.
	That is the exact reverse of what happened with the creation of the Ministry of Justice, which I support. I do not, however, support the fact that it was done without any prior consideration. As a result, we now face the prospect of the Lord Chief Justice making a statement to Parliament under section 5 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 because the judiciary are so dissatisfied with the way in which matters were handled. The hon. Member for Pendle is absolutely right.
	I was also interested to hear the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) about the Marie Louise gardens in his constituency and to hear that he scored a goal at Stamford Bridge this morning. I was asked to play in a charity cricket match at Lord's today, but I had to decline the opportunity as I had to be here for this debate. I am happy to be here, but I am sure that had I been at Lord's I would have made a considerable score—I don't think.
	My final preliminary remark concerns the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who made a number of comments about the integrity of the voting system, some of which I agreed with and some of which I did not, as he will readily understand. I shall start with the point on which he closed: post offices. The hon. Gentleman's constituency, like mine—both are rural areas—will bear the brunt of the post office closures, and I am extremely concerned about the consequences of the closure programme. We are being asked to regard the closure of 2,500 post offices as a blessing—as a reprieve for the post office network. It will be nothing of the kind in areas such as mine. It will lead to the closure of many of the small post offices that serve the many small communities in my constituency. There are about 120 villages in my constituency, not all of which have post offices as many have closed.
	A wide variety of business is transacted in the remaining post offices. For people who rely on their post office, that is essential. If post offices close in areas such as mine, people cannot simply catch a bus or walk down the road to another post office; often there is no bus, and sometimes there is no road. Such closures can be extremely difficult for people—especially the elderly and the disabled—who do not have access to private transport. Sometimes members of young families with children do not have access to private transport either, as the breadwinner travels to work in their car. It is hard to see how such people will manage without their post office.
	The post office is much more than simply a place to buy stamps, or to collect pensions or benefits; it is, as we have said many time, a focal point for a village community. Often, it offers a wide range of services—a range far wider than the scope or the imagination of the Post Office. It is an integral part of its community; it is its heartbeat. It saddens me that that heartbeat is to be extinguished in many of our villages.
	The Government's response to the consultation ignored the 4 million signatures raised in petitions against the proposals—it ignored the campaigning activities in which many of us have been engaged. I have presented petitions on this matter to the House on behalf of my constituents; I have also presented a petition on behalf of parish councils in my constituency. They made similar points about the social, environmental and economic impact of the closure of small post offices.
	What we are getting instead are small changes to the access criteria. They are welcome, but I do not believe in them. The key change is that public transport and alternative access to key services are to be taken into account. If I believed that, I would be a happy man, and my communities would be happy, too. We have very little public transport, if any. My village has one bus a week. I do not believe that that amounts to adequate public transport. If the Post Office genuinely looked at public transport issues it would not close post offices in my constituency. However, I note that all it has to do is to show that it has considered public transport issues—before, I suspect, blithely continuing with the closure programme. That is what I believe will happen.

Simon Burns: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I suspect that he will agree with what I am about to say. Eight post offices have closed in my constituency in the past three years. It does not matter what criteria the Government lay down, because the consultation process with local people and elected representatives is a joke. When the Post Office announces a closure, it is determined that it will go ahead. It does not matter how powerful a case is or whether the criteria are met, the Post Office kindly listens but presses ahead regardless.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. We, too, have had that experience with the closure of small post offices and of Crown post offices. We have lost our Crown post office in Frome. The post office is now housed in the back of a newsagent. To my mind, it does not fulfil the same purpose in the town; and, as a result of that development, a fine public building in the middle of Frome is still empty, which is a retrograde step.
	I have no confidence in the consultation procedure. One of the representations made was that the six-week limit should be longer, but that has not happened; another was that the abolition of Postwatch, the one body that might be thought to have a key role, should be delayed, but it will not be. The closures will happen, inexorably. Many of us will argue hard for the interests of our constituents and what the closures will mean for local communities, but they will eventually happen. Rural areas do not ask for much from the Government—we certainly do not get much—but we do ask that we have a sub-post office in the village hall. Those requests are often denied and we will end up with worse communities as a result. It will be a sad day when that happens.
	If anyone labours under the delusion that the so-called outreach facilities will fulfil the same function, they are wrong. They might provide a way for people to get their pension or benefit, but that is all. Without the post office facility, the shop will die, because the two are linked. The viability of the shop depends on the post office and the viability of the post office depends on the shop. If the post office closes, the shop will go, and with it will go the social value to the community.
	The other matter that I wish to raise is the strategic road system in the west country, especially in my constituency. I predict that many people will leave London today, tomorrow and over the weekend and pass through my constituency. I hope that some of them will holiday in Somerset, but the vast majority will, sadly, go on to Devon and Cornwall, for reasons that escape me. Those people will use our roads, not our railways, which are over-priced and inefficient. Great Western is a very expensive railway and South West Trains has just announced that it is putting up its off-peak rates by 20 per cent., which is scandalous.
	The principal road used will be the A303, which must be the most neglected strategic route in Britain. In fact, the Government seem to have forgotten and written off the whole south-west region. My constituency has a simple request: effect some safety improvements on the A303 between Sparkford and Ilchester. Why are they needed? People have accidents and die at that point on the A303. It is far enough from London that they are beginning to get tired, and it is where the carriageway changes between single and double a couple of times. People therefore make mistakes and have accidents.
	Ten years ago, we had proposals to improve safety on that stretch of the A303. They went to public inquiry in 1997, and I appeared before the inquiry. There was no significant dissent and no environmental objections were raised—unlike further down the A303 where it crosses the Blackdown hills. It would be difficult to do anything to the road there without destroying the environment. Everybody agreed what should be done to the A303 in my constituency, but then the new Government placed a moratorium on further road improvements, including essential safety improvements.
	Ever since, I have been asking when the safety measures will be implemented. The answer is not before 2016 at the earliest. The Government hide behind the South West regional assembly and claim it was the assembly's decision not to go ahead. Nonsense. The assembly was told to assess all the schemes for the A303 as a single scheme. It was told that if it could not afford the schemes, it could not give them a high priority. Well, of course, it could not afford them. There was nothing like the necessary funds available for the assembly to take that decision. As the South West regional assembly inevitably has an interest in Devon and Cornwall, the far south-west, it preferred to improve the road between the A303 and the M5—the stretch that runs through the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and for Taunton (Mr. Browne)—in order to speed traffic further down the road. Safety improvements to the A303 will not therefore be made until 2016, which is scandalous.
	We cannot even get the road resurfaced to reduce noise and discomfort for local people. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) made a similar point. Resurfacing was promised at least four years ago, but it has not been done because the money has been taken elsewhere.
	We have a scandalous state of affairs not only on the A303, but on the north-south routes through my constituency. Heavy goods vehicles arrive at the south coast port of Poole and try to find their way northwards on wholly unsuitable minor roads. I say "minor"; they are officially A roads, but they are unsuitable. A couple of weeks ago I was in the village of Templecombe in my constituency where, yet again, a heavy articulated lorry had become trapped underneath the railway bridge, despite all the signs warning of the low bridge. The lorry was driven, as it happens, by a Slovenian who might have found himself on such an unsuitable road—there are no pavements in the village and the houses sit on either side of the narrow road—because he was using satnav. That happened within 20 minutes of the local primary school allowing the children out on to the road and under the bridge. There could have been a tragic accident.
	Why did that happen? It happened because no one is prepared to make the essential strategic investment to provide a safe north-south route for heavy goods vehicles that takes them out of settlements such as Henstridge and Templecombe, the villages of the Blackmore vale and some villages in Dorset, about which I am not qualified to speak because they are not in my constituency. No one looks at the strategic needs of the west country because it can safely be left to one side, can't it? That always happens. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) has just come into the Chamber, and I welcome him. He will recognise some of the difficulties caused by the lack of a safe strategic north-south route for heavy goods vehicles from the south coast ports through Dorset and Somerset.
	I know that the Deputy Leader of the House will recognise the concerns of many people about post offices in my part of the world and our determination to fight to the last, although some of us feel very pessimistic about the outcome. Will he pass on to the Department for Transport our concerns about the A303 and the fact that north-south routes to replace the A357, A358 and A359 have yet to be thought of, let alone implemented? Their absence reduces the safety of road users, has an environmental cost and destroys the well-being of many people in the west country.

Alan Reid: We have certainly had many interesting speeches today, and I agree with most of what has been said. However, I want to take issue with the remarks of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). He was perfectly correct in his description of the election and the count—it was chaotic and it was an absolute disgrace. I also agreed with a lot of what he said about postal voting. However, I take issue with what he said about the outcome in Scotland. There was no chaos after the count had been completed. The Administration were formed very quickly, and they were formed by the party that got the most votes in the election. If we had been operating that election under the old-fashioned first-past-the-post system, the party that finished second in numbers of votes, the Labour party, would have won an overall majority and still been in power. That would have been unacceptable. The people of Scotland clearly wanted to vote the Labour party out of office in Scotland, and they put it in second place. The new proportional voting system in Scotland gave a fair result, which the people wanted.
	The party that benefits most from proportional voting in Scotland is the hon. Gentleman's party. Under the first-past-the-post system there would have been only four Conservative MSPs, but the party got another 12 MSPs through the top-up list. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has discussed the matter with his colleagues in Scotland. I will happily give way to him.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to respond. The point about the Conservative party is that we put what is good for the country before party preference, but he seems to be suggesting that it is much more important, because it is good for the Conservative party, that we get a few stupid—a few top-up—MPs than we do good government in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We believe in good government for the people of this country, not in the preferment of the Conservative party or, indeed, of the Liberal Democrats.

Alan Reid: We both agree that we want good government, but we obviously disagree on the electoral system best placed to achieve that.
	I should like to take the opportunity to raise various issues that are important to my constituents. The first has been raised by several other hon. Members, and concerns the Government's plans to close 2,500 post offices. So far, the Government have not listed the individual post offices that are to close, but as there are about 100 post offices in my constituency, it is obvious that plenty of them will close under their plans. As has been said by other hon. Members, it is a disastrous policy for rural parts of the country. Post offices are the lifeblood of communities in both rural and urban areas, particularly when combined with other services such as the local shop. Often, the post office supports the only shop in the village, so when the local post office closes, it is almost certain that the shop will close, too, leaving people who do not have access to a car without anywhere to shop.
	In devising their policy of post office closures, I am sorry that the Government did not take into account the true social value of local post offices. The post office is often a source of free advice to many people, particularly vulnerable elderly people, on a variety of issues ranging from filling in forms to benefits. That service is one that banks and PayPoint simply will not have the time to provide. The staff at local post offices provide that service, and I urge the Government to take into account post offices' social worth rather than valuing them purely in terms of profit and loss.
	In my constituency, with the help of local sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, I organised a petition protesting against the Government's plans in the original consultation document. It was signed by more than 7,000 post office customers, which is about one in 10 of the adult population in my constituency, so there was a clear rejection of the Government's proposals.
	I was therefore disappointed by the fact that there was very little change in the Government's response to the consultation. Indeed, some of the changes that were made to the criteria in the original consultation document by the document published last week make the situation even worse. In the original document, one criterion stated that in rural areas,
	"95 per cent. of the total rural population"
	was to be "within 3 miles" of a post office. Naturally, that was interpreted by most people as meaning that within each rural area 95 per cent. of the population would be within 3 miles of a post office outlet. However, the criterion has now been replaced by two new criteria. One states:
	"95 per cent. of the total rural population across the UK to be within 3 miles of a post office outlet."
	The change means that there is no protection for each individual rural area, as that UK-wide target could be met while in many rural areas more than 5 per cent. of the population would be more than 6 miles from a post office outlet.
	A second test for each postcode district states:
	"95 per cent. of the population to be within 6 miles"—
	that is an increase from 3 miles in the original document—
	"of their nearest post office outlet."
	There is no logic in the use of postcode districts in these circumstances; it will lead to many anomalies. Postcode districts are shown in the first half of the postcode—for example, G83 in my case—and were originally drawn up by the Post Office to indicate the area served by a sorting office, so there is a town at the centre of most of them. The district often comprises a town and its surrounding rural area, which means that in many cases the 95 per cent. target could be achieved simply by counting the population of the town; many rural post offices more than 6 miles away could be closed yet the criteria would still be met.

David Heath: Even setting aside my hon. Friend's valid point about the 5 per cent. of people who will not fall within the criteria, how many of the 95 per cent. could walk a round trip of 12 miles to visit their local post office—or in his constituency, occasionally swim?

Alan Reid: My hon. Friend makes an excellent and valid point. Many post office customers are frail and elderly, and will certainly not be able to walk 6 miles to the post office and 6 miles home. The distances are far too long. I have some examples from my constituency. The G83 postcode covers most of the population of the towns of the Vale of Leven in the neighbouring West Dunbartonshire constituency. A few hundred people live in the small villages of Arrochar, Tarbet and Luss in my constituency, yet they could be deprived of their local post office and the criteria would still be satisfied.
	Oban is in the PA34 postcode district. Most of the population live in the town, but the district covers a sparsely populated rural area that stretches many miles, from Port Appin to Kilmelford, including many islands—Lismore, Seil and Luing—so my hon. Friend's comment about swimming is apt. PA28 relates to Campbeltown, which is another example of a moderately sized town in a large rural area. The bulk of the population of the Isle of Bute—the PA20 postcode district—live in the town of Rothesay, which means that the small number of people who live at Kilchattan Bay on the far side of the island could be deprived of their post office. I urge the Government to reconsider the criteria, because they have been changed from the earlier ones on which there was consultation.
	My hon. Friend referred to the proposal to replace post offices by an occasional visit from a mobile office. The Government's consultation document refers to post office outlets, not post offices, so a post office in a shop could be replaced by a van that visited once a week. That would allow people to collect their pension but it would be no substitute for an actual post office. The post office is often the only way that a shop can continue—the business may be unsustainable without the post office.
	Other criteria are listed, such as public transport links, but I am worried about how the Post Office's decisions will be evaluated. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) pointed out that the Post Office was not only making the proposals but taking the final decisions. The Government should look into that important point. The consultation document states:
	"Discussions are in progress on the nature of the monitoring and review arrangements."
	We need more than monitoring arrangements.
	The document refers to Postwatch, which is shortly to be abolished and merged into the National Consumer Council. It is not good enough for a consumer body simply to comment on what the Post Office does. We need an independent body that will monitor the criteria and have the power to overturn Post Office decisions when it considers that the Post Office has not met the criteria. The Post Office cannot act as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. It must be remembered that the Government have set the Post Office a target of 2,500 closures, so the Post Office will not be acting independently. It has Government targets to meet and it must balance its books.
	Another worry is the successor to the Post Office card account. In a written statement last week the Department for Work and Pensions said that the contract for the successor to POCA after 2010 would be going out to tender, and that the contract would specify 10,000 outlets throughout the UK. I accept that European rules require a tender. However, the Government have the power to draw up the tender specification, which should be drawn up in such a way that the successful operator has to provide over-the- counter cash outlets in all rural parts of the UK, including small islands where there is currently a post office but no bank or PayPoint outlet.
	Even after the 2,500 closures, the Post Office will have more than 10,000 over-the-counter outlets, but so also will PayPoint and a consortium of several banks. They could therefore also tender for the contract, but neither the banks nor PayPoint has a rural network which could match that of the Post Office. I draw the attention of the House to the TV licence payment fiasco. The contract for over-the-counter payments to renew TV licences was taken away from the Post Office and given to PayPoint.
	I know that every time I blame the Government for that a Minister intervenes to say, "It wasn't us. It was the BBC", but that excuse does not wash. The rules for TV licences are set by the Government, and the Government could easily have specified that there had to be over-the-counter outlets in rural areas throughout the UK. PayPoint has outlets in my constituency, but they are nearly all in the towns. Huge swathes of the rural part of the constituency, including several small islands, that have post offices now have no outlet where people can renew their TV licence over the counter. That must not be repeated with the successor to the Post Office card account. The tender must specify outlets throughout the rural part of the country.
	If the Post Office does not win the POCA contract, it will be a disaster. People in rural areas will not be able to collect their pension, and the loss of income because of the loss of business to the Post Office will, I suspect, mean that the 2,500 closures that the Government will force through over 18 months will be dwarfed by the number of closures that will subsequently take place. We should remember that Adam Crozier is on record as saying that the Post Office needs only 4,000 outlets in order to run its core business.
	The final issue concerning Royal Mail is its proposals for zonal pricing for businesses that send out bulk mail. Unfortunately, bulk mail is not covered by the universal service obligation, and a consultation is under way on a proposal from Royal Mail which would mean that businesses have to pay more to send mail to rural areas than to urban areas. It would be a scandal if Postcomm allowed that proposal to go through. People would be penalised for living in rural areas. Theoretically, the customer is the business. However, if electricity, gas and telecoms companies which send out bulk mail know that they will have to pay more to the Post Office to send a bill to a customer in a rural area, they will pass that on to the customer, and people living in rural areas will receive larger bills.
	It would be inconvenient for the utility companies, too. They would have to alter their computer systems, because different bills would have to be sent to rural customers rather than using one straightforward computer run. I hope that Postcomm rejects that proposal. It is seven years since the Postal Services Act 2000 was passed, and perhaps it is time to review the universal service obligation, because certain services, such as bulk mail, that are not included in it should be.
	The tax credit system is another issue that I want to discuss. The idea behind the tax credit system is excellent, and I support it. It increases the income of low-income families and encourages them to enter employment, because it makes taking a job more financially worth while. I certainly support the principle behind the system. My postbag—I am sure that this is true of all hon. Members—is full of complaints about the tax credit system, mainly from people who were given overpayments through no fault of their own. Those people spent that money in good faith, because they believed that they were entitled to it, but when a demand to pay some of it back comes out of the blue, it puts them into severe financial difficulties. The current scale of the problem is simply unacceptable. Recently published figures show that in the financial year 2005-06 nearly half the tax credit awards in my constituency were incorrect, which is typical of all constituencies throughout the country. Paying back overpayments has caused terrible hardship to many people on low incomes. The Government must examine the system and devise a less complex model.
	Many constituents have come to me after being deluged with conflicting award notices sent out over a very short period of time—in some cases, conflicting award notices were sent out on the same day. Under current HMRC rules, however, the onus is still on the claimant to work out whether their award is wrong and what they are due. If people do not do that and spend the money, they can be clobbered with demands to pay some of that money back. The system automatically tries to overcome overpayments without making any effort to establish who is to blame for the overpayment or the financial circumstances of the claimant.
	When the ombudsman looked into the matter a year or two ago, one of her most important recommendations was that HMRC should reverse the burden of proof in cases in which the error is caused by HMRC itself. In such a case, the assumption should be that an overpayment is not recoverable, unless the claimant was sent a clear award notice and it should have been obvious to them that it was wrong. Where an overpayment is alleged, the claimant should be sent a letter stating clearly how the overpayment occurred.
	At the moment, the claimant is simply told that an overpayment has been made. Instead of that, they should be given clear details of the calculation that caused the overpayment. Instead of then demanding the money back straight away, there should be a pause, and the claimant should be given the automatic right to appeal, which would allow time for a challenge to be made and considered without the money automatically being clawed back and the onus being put on the claimant to go to their MP or a local advice centre. The system is so complicated that no ordinary lay person without proper training can work it out.
	I think that those suggestions would greatly improve the system. Many people on low incomes who have been asked to repay overpayments have told me that they will never again apply for tax credits because of the financial hardship and stress that the recovery of overpayments has caused them. I always encourage them to apply, but they should never be put into a situation where they are deterred from doing so.
	Also in relation to tax credits, it is clear that the adjudicator and the parliamentary ombudsman are being overwhelmed with complaints. More resources need to be given to those two offices in order for them to be able to investigate and respond to complaints within a reasonable period of time.
	Finally, I want to put on record my opposition to the tactics that are being adopted by anti-nuclear protesters outside Faslane naval base in my constituency. I support everybody's right to peaceful protest provided that they do not block anyone else's right to freedom of movement. However, I utterly condemn the tactics of the protest organisers, which involve regular protests that block the road outside the base and prevent people from getting to work and children from getting to school. Not only workers at the base itself get held up. Because the road past the base is a main road, people who are going to work elsewhere get held up, as well as school buses. We have got to the situation where local people in Garlochhead are themselves organising peaceful protest marches to oppose the Faslane protesters. Those protests are perfectly legal and do not disrupt the road, but the tactics of the anti-nuclear protesters are completely unacceptable. I wish that the organisers would realise that they are not winning any support for their cause by behaving in this way, but merely alienating people, and that they would be much more likely to gain public support if they protested in a legal and peaceful way that did not block the road and stop other people from going about their lawful business.
	Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise those issues. I wish you and other hon. Members an enjoyable recess.

Shailesh Vara: I start my comments on a rather sad note by paying tribute to Lord Renton, known affectionately to most of us as David Renton, who sadly passed away this morning in Abbots Ripton, surrounded by his family. David was approaching his 99th year and was, until recently, very active in the other place. He served Huntingdonshire with distinction, being its Member of Parliament from 1945 to 1979, when he was succeeded by John Major. David was a true gentleman—a lovely man who will truly be missed by all of us who knew him. I am sure that I echo the sentiments of the whole House when I say that our thoughts and prayers are very much with his family and friends.
	Turning to the Adjournment debate, as always we have had a number of speeches, all of which have been excellent in their own ways and which have covered a broad range of subjects, from the domestic to the international. We started off the debate with a contribution from the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who pointed out that last time round she was the last person to be called and was obviously delighted that this time her ordeal was over sooner rather than later. There was nothing in her speech that she had not raised in previous debates. She was particularly keen to emphasise the surfacing and noise problems on the A180 road, as well as the tolls on the Humber bridge. It is fair to say that we all have considerable sympathy with everything that she said, and hope that some of the problems will be sorted out sooner rather than later.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) gave a thoughtful and knowledgeable speech, with special reference to two issues. The House was brought to attention when he asked in Prime Minister's questions about the link between learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, and criminality. We all applaud the excellent work of Jackie Hewitt-Main, a remarkable woman, who is a volunteer and conducts a project at Chelmsford prison. I hope that other prisons will follow the example of Chelmsford prison. He also raised another difficult but prominent issue, which affects many of our constituencies. He presented a measured and reasoned argument about the allocation of social housing. The subject needs to be tackled delicately and sensitively, and my hon. Friend did that.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made his usual contribution to the recess Adjournment. As ever, he was witty as well as serious. He was right to point out that several lessons need to be learned from reality television and I hope that they will be taken on board. He was also keen to emphasise the outrage that members of the judiciary feel about the newly created Ministry of Justice. He underlined the fact that many members of the judiciary were not consulted or, if they were, the consultation was purely nominal. I hope that he will participate in consideration of the Legal Services Bill, which the House will debate on the first day back after the Whitsun recess. I would like him to be able to make some valid contributions to the debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) delivered a passionate speech about the difficulties of the rural way of life. He mentioned post office closures—a subject that recurred in several subsequent speeches. It is interesting to note that, when the current round of closures is completed, one third of the post office network will have closed since 1997. He was right to point out that post offices are often the lifeblood of local communities and that their closure is a sad loss to many.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned food security, which is especially serious given that many farmers are considering giving up farming or diversifying. That is an important issue, which does not get enough attention. I hope that it will be taken on board today. He also mentioned labelling foods, especially those that are processed and manufactured overseas but then tackled in some token way in this country and marketed in our shops as British produce. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 needs to deal with that quickly.
	The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) made several points, most of them of a critical nature. He spoke with considerable passion. He discussed the lack of consultation with the judiciary and also the endless reorganisations by Governments. He reminded us that several reorganisations will happen under the Prime Minister-elect. If he will forgive my saying so, effective leadership, proper management and—dare I say it—perhaps a change of Government are required, not reorganisation.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that he asked the Home Secretary a simple question on 30 April about splitting the Home Office. It is a straightforward question that deserves a straightforward answer. Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will convey that to the Home Secretary.
	The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) made a passionate case for retaining the Marie Louise gardens. It is extraordinary that, despite the restrictive covenant, the local council plans to build more flats there. I hope that he will have joy in ensuring that the gardens remain.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) reminded us that he was speaking in his first Adjournment debate, and may I say what a welcome contribution he made? [Hon. Members: "Creep!"] I am simply telling the truth. My hon. Friend spoke of the need to maintain the integrity of the electoral system—an issue of concern not only to the House, but to all of us who value proper democracy. He raised serious points on a wide range of aspects of the electoral process. In an intervention on him, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley commented on the Council of Europe. It is indeed a sad state of affairs that the Council of Europe, which monitors elections in places such as Albania, Ukraine and Russia, should be considering monitoring elections in the UK, which is of course quite keen on telling the rest of the world about the importance of free and fair elections.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) spoke on the subject of post offices, too, and made particular reference to the fact that access to private transport is denied to many people who are elderly, disabled or young parents. I wish him well in trying to sort out the difficulties with the A303, which is clearly causing a lot of difficulty not only to his constituents but to the many people who drive through his constituency.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) also touched on the issue of post offices, and he listed an impressive number of place names in his constituency, which I will not even attempt to repeat. He rightly concluded by commenting on the tax credit system. I am sure that almost all of us in the House have strong connections with that subject, by way of the post that we receive from our constituents. He spoke of the hardship that is experienced when people have to repay sums of money that they have been overpaid, and he particularly mentioned cases in which people informed the authorities of a change of circumstances but that information was ignored. I am sure that we all have considerable sympathy with what he said.
	Finally, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will take on board the important point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). That is obviously a matter of great importance, particularly given that the recess will very soon be upon us.
	I conclude by wishing a happy Whitsun recess to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to all the staff of the House of Commons, to all Members and their staff and, importantly, to the security staff, some of whom will continue to work throughout the recess.

Paddy Tipping: May I begin by reinforcing the point that the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) made about Lord David Renton? He had a distinguished career, both in this House and the other place, and that was preceded by a fine career at the Bar. He was a man who had bottom, as Denis Healey would say. He had interests outside this place, and he was extremely interested in cricket; that must run in the blood in Huntingdon, as his successor followed him in that regard. I note that Lord Renton was interested in people with a physical or mental disability, and I highlight his role as chairman of Mind for an important period in that organisation's history.
	When I summed up in the Easter recess Adjournment debate, I wished Opposition Members a relaxed and enjoyable holiday, but I counselled my hon. Friends to get out and campaign for the elections of 3 May. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said, we had some successes. Like him, I compliment my old friend, Councillor Ross Willmott, on all his achievements in Leicester. I would like to highlight the real success in North Lincolnshire and—let me blow the trumpet for my own part of the country—Nottingham, where the city council, under John Collins, gained five extra seats. So it seems that people heeded my words and got out on the campaign trail with some success, but as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will be keen to remind me, that success was not universal, either in the English counties, or in Wales and Scotland.
	This has been a wide-ranging debate, moving from the colour of the cats in Immingham and the spots on washing there to a discussion about the EU. In addition, I shall of course take up the point made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about the investigation into what I shall call the kidnapping in Iran.
	It is interesting that hon. Members have welcomed this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) said that it was a marvellous opportunity, and called it democracy at its best. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley took the opportunity to get rid of his pent-up feelings and to escape from the straitjacket in which some of us—and especially his colleagues on that side of the House—are very keen to keep him.
	Many constituency issues were raised in the debate, and some important themes emerged. I think that the House dealt in a very sensitive and thoughtful way with the question of race, which is clearly a major preoccupation in this country. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) talked about housing allocation policy—a real issue for many hon. Members—in a very professional and thoughtful way.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East raised similar points about the "Big Brother" television programme. Channel 4 has acted in an ignorant and arrogant manner right from the beginning, when it pretended that there was no problem. Even today, its chief executive denied that any difficulties had arisen, but I hope that the channel's bosses will look at the Ofcom report very carefully and that their patronising attitude of the past will be replaced by something more humble and thoughtful.
	Roads were a major theme of the debate, and I shall certainly draw the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes about the A180 and the Immingham bypass to the attention of colleagues in the Department for Transport. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) talked about the A303 and I have some sympathy with what he said, as the A46 between Newark and Widmerpool in my area needs to be widened. There, the debate is about whether the Department for Transport has central responsibility for the project, or whether it should come out of the budget devolved to the regional assembly.
	The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) talked about the need for noise reduction measures on the M1. I hope that he will not consider me indiscreet if I reveal that I once drove him down that part of the motorway and delivered him safely home. However, I shall draw all his comments to the attention of the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)
	Post offices were another theme of the debate. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) made the point that the Post Office itself believes that its commercial network will operate through 4,000 outlets. Let me be clear—the Government do not agree. We believe that post offices have a social as well as a commercial value, and that is why we have spent £2 billion already on supporting the network, and why we are making a further £1.7 billion available through to 2011.
	I hope that that money will stabilise the network. We must remember that it is run by private franchisees, who want some certainty about the future. They did not enjoy the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made, but they have welcomed the certainty about the future that it contained.
	Again, we must be clear about the fact that there has been a change in the demand for post office services. These days, 98 per cent of new pensioners claim their money not from post offices but through their bank accounts.
	The hon. Member for Blaby said that he was a novice when it came to the e-mail, but we are all e-mailing now, even Luddites like me. That too has its effects on the post office network. I have just renewed my vehicle licence over the telephone. It was easy. Given those changes, there will have to be changes in the post office network. We do not like it. It is painful. It will affect my constituency, and it will affect our constituents. It will be hard and difficult, but hard and difficult choices will have to be made, and they will have to be made at a local level.
	The Post Office is now saying that from this summer, over the next 18 months, it will examine groups of post offices in parliamentary constituencies, 50 or 60 at a time, and make choices to provide the most accessible and sustainable network possible. I understand that that will not be easy, and that people, particularly elderly people, will lose out.

Nigel Evans: I was here when the statement on post offices was made. It was emphasised that they were losing £4 million a week. My great fear is that there will be a hit list of the most loss-making post offices, which may well be in rural areas, and that they will be for the chop; otherwise, the Post Office will not be able to save the money. It is hardly likely to prune the network by closing post offices that are not losing money.

Paddy Tipping: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has reminded me that the Post Office is losing £4 million a week. There are 4 million fewer customers a week than there were this time last year. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there will be post offices that do very little business. I believe that the 100 least used post offices have fewer than 30 customers a week—four or five a day at best. That is the scale of the problem.
	What we must do is ensure that the time over the next 18 months is used sensibly and rationally, with the aim of securing the most sustainable system possible. We must ensure not just that the post offices that are well used remain open, but that—a point made by both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute—local communities are protected. As I have said, it will not be easy. It is a painful decision, and there is a painful path to tread, but I believe there is no real alternative to that path.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes made some other points. I hope that her discussion with Associated British Ports tomorrow goes well. Yes, there are operating licences, but big companies like that have a responsibility to act in a neighbourly way too, and it is clear that it could make a difference in the area. I also wish my hon. Friend well in her discussion with the national health service about tolls on the Humber bridge. I have used the bridge twice in the last month to go to Hull, and I understand the feelings of people who have to go to hospital and find themselves incurring real as well as personal costs.
	I am pleased that progress has been made with police community support officers, and I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), is to visit my hon. Friend's constituency. I know that he will use the opportunity to remind the council that it has powers to tackle antisocial behaviour and issue dispersal orders. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments about salt marshes in Cleethorpes to the attention of colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope that that will bring about the same kind of progress that she achieved before Easter.
	I must tell the hon. Member for West Chelmsford—I had better be careful how I say this—that I have spent time in prison. I spent a long time in prison once.

Nigel Evans: Not long enough! "Stretch" is the word.

Paddy Tipping: I had the keys. I could leave when I wanted to.
	What the hon. Member for West Chelmsford said about the prison population was exactly right, and he was right to quote the Prime Minister's words "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". The mentoring scheme that he described really is important. The Government recognise the importance of not just working with prisoners in prison, but continuing mentoring outside prison. That is why we set up the national offender management scheme. I was very interested in the points that the hon. Gentleman made, and I will talk to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), about the example that he gave. It is a good pioneering example and we can draw from it.
	I have already mentioned what the hon. Gentleman said about social housing. Housing is a big issue for all of us. I remind him that the Government have made extra money available for social housing. Between 1997 and 2005, 300,000 new homes have been built. Housing investment has doubled; it is about £2 billion in the current year. I will have a little wager with him that when the comprehensive spending review is announced this autumn there will be yet more money for social housing. We all know through our constituency case loads that many young families are in real need; their needs are currently not being met.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about allocation policies. The Government have some influence in that respect, but again it is for housing associations and local councils to create sensible schemes that meet the needs of their communities.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East talked about the Ministry of Justice and the work of the Select Committee. I have already praised him, so he has gone—knowing my right hon. Friend, he is already doing the press release. I followed the discussion in the Select Committee between the Lord Chancellor and Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, with interest. I note that, since the Select Committee hearing, the Lord Chancellor has been in direct touch with the Lord Chief Justice. It is important that we have a resolution to what could be an all-important constitutional point.
	Those issues were also picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who spoke about the royal prerogative. I remind him that only 10 days or so ago the Government changed their position on war-making powers and conceded that there was a need for new procedures and new conventions that more closely involved Parliament in such important decisions.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley teased me and asked me what I expected to see from Prime Minister B, as he described him. I do not have a crystal ball, but I think that we will see an increasing focus on constitutional matters. I hope and expect that we will see greater belief and greater determination to involve Parliament more in the discussions. We should all celebrate that. If one were to ask me about a written constitution, it is interesting that both the Attorney-General and the Leader of the House are talking openly and are in discussions about the need for a written constitution. I believe that the tide is changing on that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle got into some debate with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley about the European Council. A lot of discussion is going on in government about our negotiating position. I do not think for a moment that we will see the birth of a new constitutional treaty. Let us be clear that France and the Netherlands, where people had a chance to vote on it, turned down the constitution. I would be very surprised if we see any more than a framework document. When we have a document and something that is extant, rather than something that we speculate about, we will make a decision about a referendum, but the promise still stands: if there were to be big constitutional changes such as that, the Government's position remains that there would be a referendum. Let us see what emanates from discussions on the Council. I remind the hon. Member for Ribble Valley that there will be an opportunity for the House to debate that before the Council sits and that a statement will be made after the Council meeting.

Nigel Evans: I want to refer to an article in  Le Monde, if only to prove that I am better read than the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) was in his contribution. I will return it to the Tea Room—honest. It is about Sarkozy, Brussels and the renewal that is taking place. Since he has become president, Sarkozy is clearly displaying a new attitude. My great fear is that the terms of the new constitutional treaty will go much deeper than was anticipated. For example, if we are going to have a president of the European Union who is directly elected, surely that should be a decision for the British people, if that is the way we wish to go.

Paddy Tipping: I thought that I had just given that commitment. Let me just say that there are different forces working in Europe and it is important to be at the heart of Europe to try and influence those discussions so that we get an outcome that is in the best interest of the UK people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle talked not only about the Ministry of Justice, but about reorganisation and the mechanics of government. My view is that we are very good at making policy, but we are not good at—and we need to improve—change management. As my hon. Friend said, we must consider the dysfunctional costs of change. We may have big ideas about the future, but we need to be clear what our policies are, what our outputs will be and how to measure them. What we also need to do is not criticise public services. The people who work in public services do so because of their commitment and vision for the future. A good manager will praise people to get rewards rather than criticise them.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley made an important point about the utility companies and the fact that people who do not have direct debits have to pay more. I have been looking at my BT bill, which makes it clear that I can still pay it at the post office. It really is unfortunate that big companies—big water and electricity companies, for example—are penalising some of the oldest and most disadvantaged members of our communities by insisting that they have to pay by direct debit. I hope that those who follow our debate will listen carefully to the points that have been made across the House about that.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley also talked about agriculture. He is right to say that there is a big market for organics and local food. Booths supermarkets and others have now identified that market and are trying to buy locally, source locally and promote locally—and "taste the view" is a good example of that. He also talked about the plight of dairy farmers. I do not minimise the difficulties—they are real—but Booths and other supermarkets are introducing schemes to pay a better, increased price, sometimes for premium milk, which will help the industry. I would also like to praise the work of the women's institute. Consumers can change things and the women's institute has caused a very important change to be made as a result of its campaign.
	I know that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley is a bit of a Eurosceptic, but we spend about £3 billion on the common agricultural policy. I think that we will move even further from paying for production towards paying for those things judged to be for the public good. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the value of the environment and the landscape to many people and I believe that, increasingly, we will make payments to farmers to maintain that landscape and environment rather than pay them for crops, which we have not always wanted in the past.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) on scoring at Stamford Bridge today—a fine performance there and a good performance here in the Commons—though I am very sorry for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome who, because of his duties in the House, did not score the best century ever at Lord's today. I do not want to comment directly on the two examples of the Marie Louise gardens and the Mersey valley warden service other than to say that covenants are very difficult. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington said, a covenant has to have beneficiaries and finding them can sometimes be hard. The wider issue is to take good advice on covenants. It is worth reminding all local authorities—not just those in Manchester—of the real value of Victorian parks and open spaces in urban areas. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have neglected them in the past.
	Let me give the hon. Gentleman a bit of advice, although he might not need it. At Wigwam lane in Hucknall, in my constituency, a local playing field is being sold off. The local people have discovered a covenant and taken legal advice. They have perhaps not got as far with that as they might have done, but they have been able to establish that there have been 20 years of continuous informal use and have applied for village green status. People who are interested in the Marie Louise gardens might want to investigate that option. I am delighted that there now appears to be a better relationship with the appropriate cabinet minister in Manchester city council.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned cuts in the warden scheme. I do not want to comment on that, save to say that the growing number of elderly people presents an important challenge to us all. It is one of the big policy challenges of the future. The number of people aged over 85 in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will double by 2020, and we will need to make more resources available for proper community services that meet people's needs, which can often cost more than residential accommodation. This is a big, real issue.
	I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Blaby describe himself as a "wicked Tory". That allows me to say, "It's the same old Tories. They haven't changed their spots at all." The hon. Gentleman talked about electoral matters, including new processes and new methods of voting. It is important that we experiment with those, and that we go forward carefully with them and evaluate the evidence. We must also look carefully at things that go wrong, and things clearly went wrong in the Scottish parliamentary election. That is why there is now an inquiry involving the Electoral Commission and independent international expertise.
	Rather than talking about methodology and processes, however, the important thing that we, as politicians, need to do is to inspire and excite people about politics, so that they will want to be part of the democratic process and feel that they can make a difference. It is important to recognise that in parts of the country on 3 May, only 21 per cent. of the people came out to vote, whereas 85 per cent. turned out in the French presidential election at about the same time. We need to encourage people to believe that they can make a difference.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Leeds. I have looked at the article in  The Sunday Times very carefully. This is a matter for the West Yorkshire police, who are investigating the issue, but it seems to me that the electoral code on postal voting produced by the Electoral Commission has not been followed properly. However, I am not immediately convinced that an electoral crime has been committed. That is a matter for the police and the returning officer; let us wait and see what they have to say.
	I am pleased to support the hon. Gentleman's call for single-Member first-past-the-post systems. One of the things that is important to us as parliamentarians is our clear link and relationship with our own areas, our own people, our own voters. I would be anxious if we were to move away from that.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute spoke strongly about post offices, and I have already addressed that issue. He also mentioned another issue that all parliamentarians are concerned about, namely the tax credit system. He acknowledged that tax credits were important for low-paid families, particularly those with children. Six million families are now benefiting from them. The amount of overpayment is coming down year on year, although more needs to be done. The disregard of £25,000 from 1 April this year will also make a difference, because it is unlikely that many people's income will vary by that amount over a year. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us, however, that we need to be vigilant and to push Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs when overpayments take place. It is a difficult matter and we need to give people proper advice and confidence in the system.
	This has been a good debate. I am conscious that I have not answered all the points but I am going to stop now— [ Interruption. ] I have got the message from the Conservative Whip and my Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), who is glaring at me. We will look carefully at the points made by hon. Members and if we have not addressed them, we will draw them to the attention of the appropriate Ministers and ensure that Members get a reply.
	I wish all hon. Members a very relaxing holiday and, more particularly, I thank the staff of the House and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your hard work and wish you a relaxing holiday.

Alan Campbell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	 Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EVERY CHILD A READER

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Mark Todd: This is certainly the second and possibly the third time that I have been selected for an Adjournment debate just before a recess, and therefore detained a Minister, and a Parliamentary Private Secretary, who might have other things that they would like to be doing. I hope that he will find it worth while, because this is an important subject that deserves further discussion in this House.
	The subject is the Every Child a Reader scheme, and I shall start by placing what I am going to say in the context of the Government's achievements in literacy. The substantial improvement since 1997 in the performance of schools in producing pupils who are at least basically literate has been significant and welcome. There have been a number of innovative and highly successful initiatives to strengthen the ability to build literacy through other means as well. Sure Start is an excellent example, and one of the mini Sure Starts is in my constituency. But other initiatives, such as Reading Champions, which is focused on boys, and the Bookstart programme to deliver books to families, are all intended to provide a holistic approach to improving literacy skills. The worrying element is that there remains a tail of non-achievement amongst a minority. Roughly 20 per cent. of boys and 13 per cent. of girls leave our schools with literacy levels below the accepted range for that age.
	Every Child a Reader is aimed at exactly that tail: identifying early those who will struggle with literacy and providing remedial programmes for them. The previous Adjournment debate on the subject came just before the publication of two reports that evaluated the success of the programme, so I thought it would be opportune to discuss this again, now we have in the public domain the research that shows what has been going on.
	The first piece of research I will refer to is by KPMG. KPMG is one of the sponsors of the programme; it is worth saying that the programme is not wholly funded by the Government. It is match-funded by the Government and linked to a range of private and voluntary sector funding bodies who share the Government's goal of wishing to improve reading skills. KPMG's research focused on the costs of failing to remedy poor literacy skills. It showed that the cost to the state per person up to the age of 37, where the data become difficult to work with, was £45,053 per individual. That amounts to around £2 billion a year.
	Those costs are often incurred in ways that most of us could readily identify, and which would lead us to say, "Well, that's fair enough; I can see that." A good example is additional special educational needs support in secondary schools, which is expensive. Slightly less obvious are costs relating to exclusion and the consequences of negative experiences in school, which are often linked to poor literacy. Another cost is that someone who leaves school with poor reading skills is likely to face longer periods of unemployment, or employment on very low earnings—and as we know, one outcome of unemployment can be poor health, and it can also result in a greater likelihood of that person being involved in criminal activity. It is not difficult to see how the figures for the economic consequences of failing to deal with poor reading skills at an early age are worked out.
	Other costs are not even estimated. One of them involves the intergenerational link. Once poor literacy has been established in a family, it is likely that those low reading skills will continue for generation after generation, because the child's home will not have the role models, or the books, that can help them to build on whatever they have achieved in school.
	I will address the success of Every Child a Reader shortly, but first let us consider the return on the investment in that programme. The cost is just under £2,500 per pupil, so the return is about £15 to £18 for every pound spent. I used to be a business man, and if someone had offered a return of anything like that, I would have found myself standing in a long queue of those willing to invest their money. That return makes it incontrovertible that early remedial action to deal with poor reading skills has a huge societal and economic benefit, and is well worth taking.
	Let us look at other research on the scheme. It funds specially trained reading recovery teachers in infant and primary schools teaching five to six-year-olds. It is targeted on that age range, based on experience of success elsewhere. The scheme is not novel—it came from New Zealand—and there is plenty of learning experience behind it, which shows that it is best applied in that period of a child's education.
	The first year of the three-year pilot that is still in progress has been evaluated. It showed that in schools funded through the programme, there was an average gain of 21 months in the reading age of the children targeted in four to five months of teaching—just 38 hours of committed time by a teacher. In contrast, similar children in schools without that level of support fell further behind. Regrettably, the experience is that once poor reading skills are established, the child becomes depressed and demotivated in school—and that instead of progressing, they fall back.
	Unsurprisingly, the benefits of better reading skills are not confined to being able to read better. They have a huge impact on behaviour in schools, commitment to other subjects in the school curriculum and matters such as school attendance. They have a major rounded effect on the child in the school community, and also on the school community itself. Encouragingly, the research shows that the gender gap between boys and girls is narrowed, too. Boys gain slightly more from this intervention than girls. The gap is illustrated by the fact that 63 per cent. of children taking part in the programme are boys. We all know that disproportionately more young boys have difficulty learning to read and achieving in school.
	There is also evidence that the presence of a trained literacy teacher has consequential effects elsewhere in the school community. Primary schools in my constituency are smaller than the national average, as it is a primarily rural area. One or two children who require disproportionate teacher time can have a severe impact on the wider school performance. I remember vividly one example of a small school in my constituency which had 40 to 45 pupils in a confined teaching space. There was a genuine anxiety that one child who was failing badly, and, possibly as a consequence, also had behaviour problems, would have a negative effect on the wider school community. I can therefore understand how such things have a wider resonance for the school community as a whole.
	Derbyshire was identified as part of the pilot from the start. Elmsleigh infants and Stenson Fields primary in my constituency have participated in the pilot to date, and Woodville infants will join the scheme this year. They are all excellent schools and serve slightly different areas. Elmsleigh infants primarily serves a former local authority housing estate and its environs, Stenson Fields serves the only ethnically mixed area in my constituency, with a large Sikh community, and Woodville infants serves a mixed area of new housing estates and some older traditional terraced housing. They represent a good range of the challenges in my area.
	Every Child a Reader, as it applies in Derbyshire—and as is probably true elsewhere too—is not fully funded. The council has had to provide some top-up funding, and has voluntarily extended the scheme to reach other schools beyond those originally funded. However, it remains the case that even with that extension, only 12 Derbyshire schools will be part of the programme in this school year.
	Zoe Davis is a teacher at Elmsleigh and has taught 13 children since the scheme started. The children selected were those with the most significant deficits in reading skills. Zoe feels that many more children would benefit from such intervention if it could be funded. I shall depersonalise the assessment of one of the pupils to illustrate the impact of the scheme. In 13 weeks, the child advanced from a reading age of four years 10 months to one of six years one month. The pupil also experienced a huge increase in confidence. Not only is she now able to read, but she feels much more confident in addressing the other challenges of school life. The teacher says that before the scheme she was painfully shy, but is now much more at ease with the tasks that she faces every day.
	In an example of parental reaction to the scheme, Sally Shreeve, a parent at Elmsleigh, has said that it has made a huge difference to her daughter, Daisy. Sally says:
	"Before she was frightened to pick up a book and now she is reading all the time."
	There are personal experiences that back up the data. The scheme is having tremendously positive results. Derbyshire's senior adviser for school improvement, Judith Oakes, believes that children in every school would benefit from the programme. It has been a resounding success.
	The pre-Budget report announced that the programme will now be rolled out nationally, reaching 30,000 children by 2010-11. My first question to the Minister is: how is that to be done? What discretion will local authorities have in deciding how to allocate the resources? Can they be targeted at particular schools? As I said, there are issues. Four in 10 children who leave school with a reading age below that expected of them come from what would be described as deprived backgrounds, but six in 10 do not. Although it is certainly true that coming from a background where reading is not so common, where there may be no books in the house, and where incomes are low may be a bias towards poorer reading skills, it is certainly not a precondition for them. There are also many children from more affluent families who for various reasons have poor reading skills.
	I can see the temptation to focus resources on the areas of greatest deprivation, and I think that that will miss significant numbers of children. I am proud to say that my constituency is a great deal more affluent than it was 10 or 15 years ago, and people also have much higher aspirations, but I would not want the assumption to be, "There's no problem in a place like that. The resources should be targeted at poorer areas, where deprivation is more entrenched." I want to ensure that the programme is applicable to any school where there are children defined as having difficulty reaching the appropriate reading age.
	My second question is: how is the roll-out to be funded? As I have indicated, the programme is already not wholly funded from central Government resources. The local authority is expected, and has volunteered, to make a contribution towards the costs. Will that be the case when the programme is extended, or will it be wholly Government funded?
	It is also important that we are clear about the additional costs that the primary school sector bears. It does not get the whole benefit of the investment. If one looks at the investment figures that I gave at the start of my speech, one sees that the return is achieved during the life of that young person through to adulthood. The gain during the primary years is relatively small. It is therefore important that if primary schools are asked to achieve substantial gains with these young people, they receive targeted funding to do that. If it is left as a discretionary item, it is fairly predictable that other choices may well be made. The resources need to be clearly focused on meeting the national objectives, which, as I said, can be driven down from the KPMG helicopter view of the national benefits that we can achieve to that individual child and the story that I told of her mother's reaction to what had been done on her behalf. I look forward with great interest to what the Minister has to say on the subject.

Jim Knight: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing this debate. It is clear that he recognises the critical importance of ensuring that every child acquires a love of reading and effective skills as a reader. He recognises, too, the important contribution that Every Child a Reader has to make. His comments will interest many parents, and I am sure that many teachers in South Derbyshire will welcome the support he has expressed.
	I welcome the opportunity to describe the way in which the Government are working to ensure that every child makes excellent progress in reading. The lives of too many adults are blighted by illiteracy, and we are committed to eradicating that scourge. I want to talk about the wider measures that the Government have introduced before focusing on specific interventions, including Every Child a Reader.
	The ability to read underpins all educational achievement, and there is a clear link between reading for pleasure and academic performance, not just in English but, as my hon. Friend said, across the curriculum. Without the ability to read, children cannot play a full part in society as they grow up. The ability to read is essential, not merely because it is the foundation of all other learning but because of the joy it brings to people throughout their lives. Ensuring that children are fluent readers is a vital part of our goal to give every child the chance to fulfil their potential. We cannot afford to overlook pupils or leave anyone behind. A society with high literacy is not merely a better-educated society: it leads to higher skills, reduced crime and better health. Creating such a society means, first, doing all we can to ensure that children's life chances are equal and, secondly, helping those children who fall behind to catch up with their peers.
	The Government have significantly improved educational achievement, particularly in primary schools. In 1997, a third of children left primary school without mastering the basics in English and maths. Today three quarters achieve the expected standard in maths and about four fifths in English. In fact, the 2006 key stage 2 results at the end of primary school are the best ever.
	Much of that achievement can be attributed to the success of the literacy and numeracy strategies, and now the primary national strategy. Nor is progress limited to the affluent. Greater numbers of pupils from all socio-economic groups are improving their results. Just as important, the performance gap between well-off and more deprived children has decreased, which is critical if we are to promote greater social mobility by narrowing the achievement gap. We are committed to going further and to ensuring that every child can fulfil their potential. A significant minority of children still experience problems with reading that could lead to poor outcomes in later life. We cannot wait for those problems to become manifest at 11, so we must identify those children earlier.
	As part of our emphasis on personalised learning and meeting the needs of each child, we need to deploy a variety of different strategies if we are to be truly effective. For example, last week at the school librarian of the year awards, I was delighted to unveil the latest title in the School Libraries Association's "Riveting Reads" series. "Boys into Books" is aimed at boys who stop reading for pleasure in their early teens. At the event, I was delighted to meet Ingrid Hopson, who is school librarian of the year and is just one example of the many school librarians who are enthusiastic advocates for the power and joy of reading, inspiring many young people to explore worlds that they would otherwise never encounter. Drawing on the expertise of its members, the association has done an outstanding job in coming up with a list of 150 books designed to appeal to young people, especially boys, whatever their interests and talents. Every secondary school with boys on its roll has the chance to pick 20 books from the list for its school library, and we hope that many parents will find it a useful resource, too. Like me, my hon. Friend might have enjoyed some of the classics on the list such as "Kidnapped", "The Hobbit" and the more recent "Northern Lights". He might be less familiar with modern classics such as "Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People" and "The Stinky Cheese Man", but I can assure him that they are well worth the read.
	Turning to the importance of helping children to read and enjoy reading at a young age, last October, we launched the reinvigorated primary framework for literacy and mathematics, which has already helped to raise attainment levels among all pupils in primary schools, particularly those facing the greatest disadvantage. The literacy element of the framework is grounded in the independent Rose review of the teaching of early reading. The framework incorporates Jim Rose's view that systematic phonic work, set within a rich language curriculum, is the best route for most children to become skilled readers. Meanwhile, to ensure that we get children off to the best possible start in life, we will introduce the early years foundation stage from September 2008. By overcoming the artificial divide between care and learning, we will improve opportunities for all children. Both the primary framework and the early years foundation stage are all about getting it right first time.
	It is critical, however, that the right systems are in place to give a child a second or third chance if they fall behind. We need to step in with extra help to put them back on track for success. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Every Child a Reader programme is already doing just that for many children in the pilot areas. It is designed to share the best of the intensive reading recovery programme, which supplements classroom literacy and is directed at the lowest achievers in reading in the class.
	Specially trained teachers provide intensive one-to-one tuition for children with significant literacy difficulties at the end of their first year of primary school. Authorities can decide locally to introduce such intervention and it is particularly beneficial in areas of high deprivation. As we have heard from Derbyshire, its success is undeniable; four fifths of children who complete a reading recovery programme as part of Every Child a Reader are returned to average or above-average literacy levels after about 38 hours of one-to-one teaching.
	It is an extremely intensive—and therefore expensive—programme, which limits the likely scope as we roll it out nationally. Every Child a Reader builds on the success of reading recovery by placing specialist literacy teachers, trained in reading recovery, in schools to support children who are most in need. By utilising reading recovery, which is a long established initiative with proven success, while widening its influence, Every Child a Reader offers benefits to a far greater number of pupils, and it has successfully expanded that intensive activity. It is clear that many children in my hon. Friend's constituency are already benefiting from the programme, and I commend his efforts to raise its profile and ensure that it reaches even more children, such as those he described, who would profit from its support.
	My hon. Friend asked about the roll-out. I assure him that we are wholly committed to that, which is why the Chancellor announced the national roll-out of Every Child a Reader in his pre-Budget report. As he said, the programme will be extended so that 30,000 children a year benefit from it by 2011. The phased roll-out will begin in 2008-09, and in the last year of the pilot for the 2007-08 period additional teachers and local authority teacher leaders will be trained to increase capacity in the system and help to ensure that we can meet the target of reaching more than 30,000 children. We are still discussing some of the detail of the roll-out, and in our discussions about targeting I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments about identifying individual need for the programme, rather than simply focusing on areas of multiple deprivation. I have considerable sympathy with that view.
	My hon. Friend asked about funding. We have yet to work out whether we shall continue the relationship with co-funders, but the £10 million that the Chancellor announced in the pre-Budget report was obviously welcome. Some schools may choose to use the personalisation money that has been agreed for them, to extend the excellent work of the programme.
	The national roll-out of Every Child a Reader will support our least able children in learning to read. If we want all children to succeed in life—as we do—we must make sure that they are able to read for enjoyment, learning and life.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Six o'clock.